← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/8470/2018disposed off

Kumari Sheetal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-01-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 8470 OF 2018

1. Kumari Sheetal Sahu, D/o Late Shri Alok Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o New Panchsheel Nagar, Qr. No. H/43, Tahsil - Raipur, Police Station - Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. and Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Engineer-in-Chief, Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihava Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, Civil Line, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey and Shri Santosh Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04.01.2019 1.

The relief sought for by the petitioner through the present writ petition is that her claim for compassionate appointment till date has not been decided by the authorities. It is the case where the death of father of the petitioner took place in the year 1991 and at that point of time the petitioner was a minor. Subsequently, her claim was put up and which is under consideration before the authorities but till date no final decision has been taken.

2.

Given the said nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondents No. 2

and 3 are directed to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner at the earliest.

3.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits so far as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned. It is for the respondent authorities who shall decide the same in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the case.

4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed off. 5.

No order as to costs.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Priyanka