SMT. INDU SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner, unfortunate widow of the deceased employee has prayed for quashing order dated 02/08/95 (Annexure P/13), by which proposal for grant of regular appointment of her late husband has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to release family pension in her favour along with interest.

(2.) Quintessential facts necessary for decision of the controversy involved in the writ petition are that the petitioner's husband - Amar Deo Singh Rathore was appointed as Coup-Guard and posted in the office of Divisional Forest Officer (Production), Forest Division, Dhamtari vide order dated 14/05/80 (Annexure P/1). He was selected and sent for training as Forest Guard vide order dated 07/09/82 (Annexure A/2). After completion of training, vide training completion certificate dated 26/02/83 (Annexure P/6), he again joined and vide order dated 06/01/84 (Annexure P/7), the petitioner's husband was granted D.A. On 13/09/85, Amar Deo Singh was murdered during duty hours.

(3.) The petitioner/widow was granted compassionate appointment in the year 1986. Later on, the petitioner claimed that she is entitled to family pension also and representations to this effect were also made. Vide memo dated 06/09/88 (Annexure P/9), Conservator of Forest required the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) to forward the case of the petitioner. In response, the DFO sent memo dated 03/10/88 (Annexure P/10) informing the Conservator of Forest that the deceased employee was not regularized on the post of Coup Guard and later on, as he successfully completed training, Ex Post Facto sanction for grant of regular appointment may be granted. Vide memo dated 21/03/90 (Annexure P/12), the petitioner was informed by the DFO that petitioner's case has been forwarded, however, vide impugned order dated 02/08/95 (Annexure P/13), the State Government rejected the proposal to grant regular status to the deceased employee. The petitioner lastly submitted representation dated 20/09/01 vide Annexure P/14, which failed to evoke any response. Finally the petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition.