SHIVAN LAL NETAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner namely late Jayram Netam was working in the contingency establishment under the respondents and died in harness on 14.05.2006. Thereafter the petitioner had moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The said application finally stood rejected vide order dated 11.02013 (Annexure P/1). The order of rejection is a three lines order, which for ready reference is being produced herein under: <IMG border=1 align=center src="http://www.indialawlibrary.com\images\23112018-185.jpg"></CENTER>

(3.) From the perusal of the aforesaid observations in Annexure P/1, it clearly reflects that the respondents have not given any reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this Court is forced to take into consideration the reasons assigned in the reply of the respondents. In the reply to the writ petition by the respondents, they have taken a categorical stand that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not regularized in contingency services and since he was not regularized, the status of the father of petitioner would remain that of a daily wage employee. Therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment as the scheme for compassionate appointment specifically excludes the daily wage employees, adhoc employees or contractual employees from getting the benefit of compassionate appointment.