GHANSHYAM Vs. CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioner, None for the respondent.

(2.) The short question involved, is whether the appointment of the persons on behalf of whom the petitioner's claim compassionate appointment were in fact appointed in a clear permanent vacancy, on regular basis by following the due process so as to make the petitioner's entitled to claim a plea for appointment and compassionate ground.

(3.) In the case of the petitioner / Ghanshyam Radheshyam Sonwal, it is contended that his uncle was appointed on a temporary basis as Sweeper, with the respondent, in light of the Circular dated 29.01.1996, by an appointment order dated 04.12.1998. It is further contended that since the uncle of the petitioner passed away, the petitioner was engaged to perform the services rendered by his uncle, and therefore, was entitled to appointment on compassionate ground in the post occupied by his uncle.