Shri Mano] Kumar Sinha, counsel for the appellant. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 4‘“ January, 2010 passed in W.P.(s) No. 7494/09, whereby petitioner‘s writ petition for direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment, has been dismissed. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that father of the appellant died on 24.5.2002 in harness while working as Peon in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Project Division, Raigarh. The appellant‘s application for compassionate appointment was rejected on thewground that his father was not a reguiar employee. The appellant‘s earlier W.P.(s)No.3354/09 was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.7.2009 with liberty to the appellant to make a representation to the authorities concerned, who, in turn, were directed to decide the same within a period of four weeks. The representation was rejected vide order dated 29.8.2009 and the writ petition against the said order of rejection has been further dismissed by the impugned order. Shri MK. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been denied compassionate appointment only on the ground of non-availability of the post in the Housing Board, though the appellant could ' be considered for compassionate appointment in the other government 1'; department as per Circular dated 10‘“ June, 2003 issued by the State Government. He further argues that from perusal of the order of rejection of the representation, it would be evident that against 60 sanctioned posts of Peon, 76 Peons/Chowkidars are working in the Housing Board and therefore, \ i g‘éIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT ILA$PURu QB. HQN’BLE $HRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON’BLE SHRB RN. CHANBRAKAR, JJ Wx'it Agapeai No.54 of 2m 0 NJpelEant Ranjit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Raj Kumar Sahu, aged Petitmner about 24 years, R/o Beladula, Kharradhar, Bhole Nagar, Raigarh, Tah. & Distt, Raigarh (CG) Versus Respandents 1‘ State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Genera! Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2i Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Commissioner Head Office, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) 3. Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur (CG) J Collector, Raigarh, Disit. Raigarh (CG) 5. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Project Division, Raigarh (CG) 22.3.2010: if the appenant is appointed, it would not make any substantial difference, However. the aforesaid aspect has not been considered in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, Shri Y.S. Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General for the state/respondents supported the impugned order. Frem the documents available on record‘ it is clear that the earlier writ petition tiled by the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty t0 the appellant to make a suitable representation for redressal of his grievances before the respondent authorities. The representation submitted by the appellant was further dismissed on the ground that there is no vacant post available as against sanctioned postof 6O Peons, 76 Peons/Chowkidars are working in the Housing Board. Learned Single Judge referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court, in the field of compassionate appointment observed that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment. but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. in other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. lt has also been observed that the ground of rejection of the petitioner's representation for grant of compassionate appointment does not seem to be illegal or improper. Considering the reasons assigned for refusing compassionate appointment to the appellant and keeping in View the settled principles of law in the matters of compassionate appointment, wef‘are of the opinion that the writ petition med by the appellant has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. We find no substance in this appeal; the same deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. \ No order as to costs. Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra owls \ Judge \ \