MANOHAR RAO LAMBADI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for compassionate appointment and also to set aside the impugned orders/letters dtd. 5/1/2011, 17/1/2011 and 10/4/2012.

(2.) Father of the petitioner namely Lambadi Malaiya was posted as Peon under the respondent No.1/department, who died in harness on 26/10/2006. The petitioner had filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 24/11/2006 along with relevant documents. Respondent No.3 vide letter dtd. 5/1/2007 forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for necessary action. As the post was not vacant in respondent No.1/department, respondent No.3 obtained consent of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and thereafter respondent No.3 again sent the case of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for necessary action. Respondent No.2 wrote a letter to respondent No,.6 on 4/2/2008 for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under the Janpad Panchayat Bhopalpattnam, but all such correspondences went in vain. Thereafter, the Collector, vide letter dtd. 5/1/2011 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his application was not forwarded by his parent department for compassionate appointment within limitation and as per the policy, the application was time barred, as it has been received after more than 3 years. The same was communicated to the petitioner vide letters dtd. 17/1/2011 (Annexure-P/9) and 20/1/2012 (Annexure-P/10). Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment well within limitation on 24/11/2006 and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. Neither the petitioner nor any other family members has been gainfully employed and they are facing acute financial crisis to earn their livelihood after the death of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the department itself has not forwarded the application of the petitioner well within time and the application has not been decided by the competent authority as per the policy. Therefore, learned counsel prays to allow the petition.