Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Vikrant Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 18 Wa/758/2018 ... on 31 October, 2018

Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Parth Prateem Sahu

                                                     1


                                                                                        NAFR
                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                        Writ Appeal No. 757 of 2018

       {Arising out of order dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
                                        (S) No. 2508 of 2018}

              Vikrant Sahu, S/o Late Shri Harnarayan Sahu, aged about 21 years, R/o Village
               Ghivra Via Birra, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

                                                                                 ---- Appellant

                                                  Versus

             1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department of School
                Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Naya
                Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

             2. The Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

             3. The District Education Officer Janjgir-Champa, Old S.P. Office District Janjgir-
                Champa (C.G.)

                                                                             ---- Respondents

For Appellant : Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Prasun Bhaduri, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 31.10.2018

1. Heard counsel for the Appellant and learned Government Advocate for the State.

2. We find no reason to interfere with the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain any prayer for a direction for 2 compassionate appointment after 18 years of the death of the bread earner i.e. the father.

3. The very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family and not to assure that an unemployed family member will be provided employment when he becomes eligible, whatever be the time span from the incident of death.

4. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

                          Sd/-                                               Sd/-

                  (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)                             (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                      Chief Justice                                        Judge
Brijmohan