Dismissed

Uday Pratap Singh Manhare v. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2020WPS/3280/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri dismissed a petition for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner seeking appointment due to his father's death. The court noted a 2007 rejection based on the deceased's wife's existing employment and the subsequent 13-year delay, finding no reason to reopen the issue.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed as liable due to delay and laches, and prior rejection on grounds of mother's existing employment.

Uday Pratap Singh Manhare Vs Municipal… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 3280 of 2020

¶4

Uday Pratap Singh Manhare S/o Late Sitaram Manhare Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Mission School, Rajendra Nagar, Brihaspati Bazar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan Raipur Road, Nehru Chowk, Below Apex Bank, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Deputy Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Vikas Bhawan Raipur Road, Nehru Chowk, Below Apex Bank, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate
For State	:	Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

03.09.2020

Heard.

The instant petition is filed for the following reliefs:-

¶16

"1. Issue an appropriate writ/ order/ direction to the respondent department/ authorities to consider the case of the petitioner regarding grant of compassionate appointment to him on account of death of his father.

¶17

Costs of the petition.

¶18

Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court."

¶19

In the instant petition the petitioner claims compassionate appointment on account of death of his father Late Shri Sitaram Manhare on 11.09.2005. Perusal of Annexure P-8, would reveal the fact that wayback on 22.05.2007 the claim of

¶20

petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that petitioner's mother (wife of Late Shri Sitaram Manhare) Smt. Ganga Bai is already working in the department. Since the denial of compassionate appointment was already made way back in the year 2007 on the ground that wife of deceased is already working in the department and after lapse of 13 years the petition is being filed, therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches apart from the fact that the wife of the deceased is already in job. Considering the same, I do not find any reason to reopen the issue in its entirety and no relief can be granted.

¶21

Accordingly, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶24

Jyoti

Uday Pratap Singh Manhare v. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Pratap Singh Manhare v. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. L. Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umashankar Sahu Vs Shri Jitendra Shukla

Chhunku @ Bhishm Vs Shri Sunil Kumar Jain

Dheeraj Kumar Arya Vs Satish Kumar Pandey

Smt. Laxmi Devi @ Laxmi Verma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Archana @ Seema Vs State of Chhattisgarh