SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WA/555/2024



2024:CGHC:34250-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 555 of 2024 Ramesh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Swatantra Kumar Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ramgarh, Tahsil-Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Ministry At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Directorate Panchayat, Chhattisgarh Vikas Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Baikunthpur, District-

Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, Tahsil-

Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Secretary/Sarpanch.

5. Gram Panchayat-Ragarh Tahsil- Sonhat, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

Digitally signed by ---- Respondents ROHIT ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR CHANDRA CHANDRA D 20a 2te 4: .09.05 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

17:43:27 +0530 _________________________________________________________

For Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate _________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

04 .0 9 .2024

1. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents and Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5.

2. By the present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant who was writ petition in the writ petition challenged the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1748/2022 (Ramesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a writ petition bearing WPS No. 1106 of 2019 was earlier filed by appellant Ramesh Kumar Mishra for a direction to decide his application for compassionate appointment as the father of the appellant Late Swatantra Kumar Mishra, who was working as Panchayat Karmi for Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh, under District Koriya, died in harness on 07.06.2018 and thereafter the appellant has moved an application for compassionate appointment which was pending consideration till that date the same has not been finalized. The said writ petition was disposed off by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2019, directing respondent No 4 & 5 therein to ensure that the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner be considered on merits and decided at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days form the date of receipt of copy of this order passed. In compliance of the said order, the respondent No.3 herein has passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby the application of the appellant for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that since the father of the appellant was already terminated from his service in the year 2007 and he died in the year 2018, therefore, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, the appellant has preferred another writ petition being WP(S) No. 1748 of 2022 before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

4. Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without appreciating the facts, grounds and evidences taken in the writ petition, rejoinder and reply of respondent No.5, as such, has committed grave

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top