Disposed

Ku Durga Yadav v. State of C G and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2012WPS/594/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment on merits by directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's application in accordance with law, keeping in mind relevant circulars. The court expressly reserved its opinion on the issues of entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Competent authority directed to consider and dispose of the application for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

Ku Durga Yadav Vs State of C G and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

-L^ r>"

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W. P. fS) No. S ^ v) of 2012 ttogto BencS

¶3

PETITIONER

¶4

-^^^^ pre^ ^ sw ^l^...^ •••ii^fr.<a?^^, ^.A;!.1^-""

¶5

Ku. Durga Yadav, aged about 20 years, D/o Late Shri Parasram Yadav, R/o Purani Basti, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil-Baloda Bazar, District-Raipur (at present District Baloda Bazar) (C.G.)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS :1.

¶8

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Revenue Developinent Departinent, D.K.S: Bhawari, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Collector, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 QF THE

¶13

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶14

PARTICULARS OF Ti!E PETITIONER :-

¶15

As stated above in cause title.

¶16

PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :-

¶17

As stated above in cause title,

¶18

<==^

¶19

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶20

HON'BLESHRI PRASHANT KUMAR Mii

¶21

W.P.(S)No.594of2012

¶22

PETITIONER Ku. DurgaYadav. Versus

¶23

The State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs.

¶24

Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel for petttionsr. Shri Ysshwani Singh Thskur, Dy. Advocate Gsnerai for ths Siats.

¶25

'02/2012)

¶26

Heard.

¶27

(2) Learned oounsel for the petitioner submits that her mother died in the year 1996 and her father dsed on 11/04i'1997. After attainina majoritv she moved apptfoation for grant of compassionate apDOintment which has not vet been disposed of.

¶28

(3) In view of the aforesaid situation, this writ petition is disposed of at the admissioft stage itself by directing competent authority to consider and dispose of Ihe petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with !aw and keeping in view the circulars issued Sw the State Government in this regard. It is made clear that this Court has not exoressed anv ODJnion on the merits of the case and regardina the netitioner's entittement to obtain compassionate appointment which shali be deait with on its own merits.

¶29

(4) With the above observatlon. the writ petition stands disoosed of.

sdJL^^^a

^^^

-..-^.:

Ku Durga Yadav v. State of C G and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku Durga Yadav v. State of C G and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratik Panels Th. Its.G.M. Vs Plywood Udyog Karmchari Union Aituc

Smt.Rekha Lal Vs State and Ors.

Hakimuddin Vs Pt.Ravi Shankar Shukla Univ.and Ors.

Smt.Savita Chandrakar Vs the State of M.P.

Durga Prasad Pandey Vs State of M.P. and Anr.

Jhumman Lal Dewangan and Ors. Vs Shri Vivek Dand and Ors.