Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23832
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
VIKRAM SONI – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED – Respondent
WPS No. 9194 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Alok Kumar Dewangan
For the Respondents: Mahendra Dubey
The Court directed the respondent authority to consider and decide upon the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment within a specified timeframe, strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy of the organization.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Representation - Direction to decide representation within a stipulated timeframe in accordance with the prevailing policy. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to decide on the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks compassionate appointment following the death of his father, citing his disability. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court heard the arguments and the opposition from the respondents. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. direction to the authority to decide the representation based on prevailing policy. (Para 5 , 6) |
Order on Board
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner within prescribed time frame and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on any post.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash / set aside the order dated 18/07/2019 passed by the respondent authorities and direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment in accordance to the existing policy within stipulated time frame.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly restrain the respondents from denial of giving compassionate appointment on the ground of delay and disability of the petitioner.
10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relevant to petitioner’s claim for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order which the petitioner is entitled and the Hon’ble Court may deem it fit in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner who was working on the post of Khalasi under the respondents at Bacheli died on 20.11.2006. He would contend that the petitioner who is 80% permanent disabled, approached the respondent authorities for grant of dependent employment and his application was forwarded by the Collector, District South Bastar, Dantewada to the respondent authorities on 25.04.2018. He would contend that though the application was moved by the petitioner in the year 2018, but till date no decision has been taken. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 1 and in turn, the said authority may be directed to decide it within stipulated time strictly in accordance with prevailing policy.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No.1 within period of 30 days and in turn, the said authority is directed to take decision on such representation within period of further 60 days strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy.
6. With the aforesaid direction(s), this writ petition is disposed of
