C^F'^^rQ i?R2J iN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V.r.P. (Sl N0. 2-2^__/_200g- Petitionei Divya Sharma @ Nitasha Trivedi; D/o Late J.P.Trivedi, Agea aoout 3U years, RT'oQr.No.318, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Dist : Raipur-(C.G.) Resoondents 1. Q ^l. ^0< ^< ^^y -^ ^..^- i^ o' y- 5<- State of Chliattissarh Through : The Secretary Home uepartiaent, u.K.y, Bhawaa Raiour, Dist : Raipur.(C.G.) The Du-ector General of Police^ Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) The Dv. Supdt. of Police M.T. W/S (Werksbop) Bilaspur, Dist: Bilaspur-iC.G.j Dv. Inspector General of Police, I-> rio+ • Oo' ir' n. i. '/ai-n-n^- S i-iQ-t * t-fa-"r^T!?l—t£' iv ^.cUpUj-, i^j.e**- • r'l.cU.^/Lu.—^ik-/.^-*.jf State of Madhva Pradesh, Througfa - Secretary, Hosae Departmcnt, Bhopal-$I*.'LF.*! Dv. Inspector General of PoUce, LJ^'Q/'I /'^•'••cs-r+n-r— RhrtTteit A-i-^/ttU- ^t^.CU. V.V/i. '="'• JLJfA.iSJJJCSJ-, Biiopal-^M.r.) WRIT PETITION U./A 226 / 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OI^INDIA Particulars of the Petitioner. As per caiise-t.!11- v meH CQURT OF JUDICATHRB CHHATnSGARH: BIL^SPUR Sia^e Beach: Hoa'Me S2iri Satish K. A^tttotri, J. '.P.(sl»o. 227 of 2007 Petitioner : Divya Sharma @ Nitasha Trivedi Vei-sus Respondent ; State of Chhattisgarh & others Shri H.P. Agiawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Goveniment Advocate for the respoudente No. 1 to 4/State. None for the rcspondents No. 5 and 6. .- /•':-. fc (Passed on thls i8th day ofjaauary, 2007) 1. The fatfaer ofthe petitioner nsanety Shri J.P. Trivedi, was workin^ as Sub-Inspector in the office ofthe respondent No. 3/PoBce M.T. Workshop, Bflaspur, when he died on 14.8,97 in hanaess. The daughter of the petitioner nainely Divya Sharina @ Nitasha Trivedi moved an appUcation for compassionate appointment on 5.10.97 (Annexure P/3) and thereafter representations dated 18.9.2001 (Aiuiexure P/5) and 28.3.2005 (Annexure P/6t were made. She ^ was aot granted coinpassionate appointment and she did not challenge the same. 2. Accoriing to fhe petitioner, she is the onfy issue ofher parente and since her mother had died on 6.8.1976, now she is the only legal heir of her father late Shri J. P. Trivedi. The petitioner got married on 3.7.1998 with Shri Sunil Shsu-ma. The petitioner has filed this ^ ¥- petition seekuig a duiectiou to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3. It is weH setfled that (he appointment on compassioaate ground is not a metfaod of recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for unm.ediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for reUeving the dependent famity members of fhe deceaaed employee from destitution. In ofher words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious famfly to tide over the suddea financial crisis and is not to provide employment. ?t is also weU settled that mere death of the emp?oyee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themaelves financiaBy finm other soTirces of income. 4. fa Haryaaa State Blectricity Board and another Vs. HafeSm (1997) 8 SCC 85 } tfae Supreme Court heM that "fhe whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the famfly to tide over fhe sudden financial crisis befaHen fhe dependeuts on account of the uatimely demise of its sole earning member." 5. The Supreme Ctourt m fee case ofState ofJfisK and others Vs. { (2006) 5 S.C.C, 766 }. in para 11 has held as under:- "11............it is ftiat sucli an appointmeut is an exception to tlie geaeral rule. NormaDy, aa employiuent in fhe Goveminent or other pubUc sectors should be opea to all eligibte candidates who can come forward to appty and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Artk'te 14 of fhe Constitution. Oa fhe basis of competitive merifs, an appointment should be made to public office. This gencral rule shoiild not be departed from except where compeBiag circumstaaces demand, such aa, death of the sole breadwiuner and likeUhood offhe family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved fhat in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the famfly survived and substantial period is ovcr, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the nonnal rule of appointinent and to show favour to one at the cost of the iaterests ofseveral othera ignoring ftie mandate ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution." 6. In view of tlie above settled principles of iaw there is no uierit in. fhis petitiou. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---—.-.-.—.-.-.. ^__ Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Babloo ^