SANTOSH SONVANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the petitioner late N.D. Sonvani was working as Pump Attendant in the Public Health and Engineering Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Jagdalpur and he died in harness on 17.8.2003. As per the petitioner, on 16.10.2003 he filed an application seeking compassionate appointment in the office of Assistant Engineer, PHE, Jagdalpur and on 5.1.2004 his case was forwarded to the police authorities for character verification and thereafter, on 4.2.2004 the Executive Engineer forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer. On 8.12.2004 the petitioner was asked to submit affidavit that there is no other earning member in his family and accordingly, the affidavit was submitted and the same was also forwarded to the authorities. However, on 22.3.2007 an order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that three years have expired from the date of death of his father and as there are no vacant posts in the department, he cannot be given compassionate appointment. Apart from the petitioner, the cases of some other persons, who had sought compassionate appointment, were also rejected and this letter dated 25.4.2007 is on record as Annexure P/10.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he again filed an application seeking compassionate appointment and when the same was not granted to him, he filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.(s) No.3170/11 which was disposed of by this Court on 22.6.2011 granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. On 12.7.2011 the petitioner again filed a fresh application seeking compassionate appointment and thereafter, on 4.8.2011 he submitted all the relevant documents. However, this application has also been rejected by the Superintending Engineer on 16.11.2011 vide Annexure P/1 mentioning therein that the petitioner had passed Class-V in the year 2009, he had submitted his application on 4.8.2011, by that time he had already completed 37 years of age and therefore, no compassionate appointment can be granted to him. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under :