The State of Chhattisgarh filed for review of an order in a compassionate appointment petition where the Single Judge had dismissed the writ. The High Court held that since the lower order did not decide the entitlement, it did not warrant review.
Review petition dismissed. The underlying order of 22.08.2003 stands unreviewed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH
CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J1’& HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA,J. M.C.C. N0. 51 0f 2G04 AFPELLANTSI State of Chhattisgarh through Its APPLECANT Secretary, General Administration Department, DKS Bhawan,Mantraiaya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. I Versus V. NON APPLICANTS 1. Akhiiesh Prasad Tiwari, Sfo Late 3RE3§0NBENTS Kanhaiya Prasad Tiwari, R/o C/‘o Mukund Bat Vidhya Mandir Vihar, Sarkanda, District Biiaspur, i Chhattiegarh i ‘ i 2. M.P.S.R.T.C. through its Chairman‘ ' i Bhopat, Madhya Pradesh. i' Ag Qiicatien far Review of the Grder dated 22-8-2003 gassed in Writ Petition No.99 of 2W2
f Present : Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learnedGovt.Advocateforthe ”5 State/petitioner. (2ndsgpi:e%§e§2003) i Court wes
(2ndsgpi:e%§e§2003) i The foiiowing order of the Court wes passed by Dajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sumesh Baiaj, learned Govt. Advocate for the i Statelpetitioner is heard on admission. i The petitioner}state, respondent No.2 in writ petition i iNo.99/2002has filed this petition for review of theorderdated r i 22.08.2003.
)t‘
Akhilesh Prasad 3) The writ petitionmedbyrespondentNo.1 Tiwari was disposed of by the ‘earnedSingieJudgevideorder dated 22.08.2003inthefoliowingterms. ‘ " Having considered the facts and circumstancesofthecaseandwithoutexpressing any epinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of thisCourtendsof justicewiiibeserved if the petitioner is permitted to make a detaiied " representation afresh aiong with a copy of this within a month from today before the petition competent authorityirespondent and on such 'sarne representation being flied, the shall be consideredanddecidedbythecompetentauthority in accordance with law as early as possibie within three months from the date of preferably receipt of after hearing the representation if any adverse order is passed, the petitioner. may avaii remedy available under the petitioner law. wit With the direction aforesaid this petition is " disposed of 4) As the aboveductedimpugnedorderhasnotdecrdedthe entitlement of respondent No.1 Akhilesh Prasad Tiwari for compassionate appointment and the respondents were only directed to considerhis representation in accordancewith law, we do not findany groundwarrantingreviewoftheorderdated 22.08.23.00
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation on compassionate appointment warrants a review.
Whether the state is entitled to seek review of an order that did not decide the merits of the case.
Whether the review petition succeeds in challenging the lower court's order.
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajeev Gupta
Sunil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
