^^^ w .^*tv .'uL." /g'-s'?-- aoff>^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM : HON'BLE MR. S.R.NAYAK. C.J. AND HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. ^iNIHOTRI; J. WRIT PETITION N0.51810F 2000 Petitioner versus Respondents Smt. Nirmala Sidar, aged about 35 years, wifeofShri Vijay Kumar Sidar, by occupation-Seryice, Birhora Ashram School, Dharamjaigarh, District Raipur 1. State ofM.P. through the Secretary Tribal Weltare Department Bhopal 2. The Commissioner (Revenue) Bilaspur Division,Bilaspur 3. Collector Raigarh 4. The State Administrative Tribunal Through the Registrar, Jabalpur Present : Mr. Rajesh Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy GQyernment Advocate for respondents No.1 to3. ORALORDER (Passed on 18n ofSeptember, 20Q6) S.R.Nayak, C.J.: The following order ofthe Court waspassed by The petitioner herein on the demise of one Gajraj, who was '/' ';- • .'. ' •'.. '... "' .' '••: working as Assistant Teacher, made an application in theyear 1995 claiming that she is a distant relatwe ofthe deceased and, therefore, she B wsII Kii Bi .Bi &KS', •E^; ^<:it ' i r^/ pssesosp 34} ^o jieq jeBs| e iou si jsuoi^sd ey} ysiff punojS psSsiie 3L|} L'O }UeLU}UIOddB JSt] 91BUILUJ3} 0^ sjBeA t' jsye uoiteoyusnf ou SB ejeijt 'ejo^sjsq^ 'pue jeuogited 04} oi 9Q61. jeeA eq} ui lueiuiuiodde pejsj^o UOffSJOSIp S}| P9S13J9X8 SUIABLJ }UeLUU.19A09 84} 'Ae[9p 8[qBJ8piSUOO 9L|l 6uipue}sii(i }ou ^84} pspusiuoo se/n i! 'AieARBUjeiiv 'souBideooe siijeiu ssiMjeqio 43iq 'UIIBJO jsy pefej 0} punojB B sq }ou pinoijs lusuiiuiodde sieuoissedLuoo io^ uoRBOi|dde SUISJBLU ui Aeiep SJSLU 'eiojsjayi 'pue fejfeo pesBsosp 84} p siuooui siji uodn luspuedep A|e[os SBA'I aqs 'fBjfBQ ,o qieep f0 S}ep 8i|} uo pue tejiteQ sje] jo jewSnep js;so^ e SBA^ jeuoiiged sii? {8L|i sn o} |eedde A[S}euo!Ssed p|n6 J9uoi}iied 94} jo^ [ssunoa peujesi qSnoqjiv 'eipui jo uoi{n}i}suoo eyt ^o ZSS/9ZS ssjoiyv ^spun ps[y si uosjtsd IUA\ 314} 'japjo }eq} Aq peAsySBe Buiieej •g ^&^ 'OOOZ-S-i. i. P8?ep ·i8P.io s»!Aq uoitBoiidde su} psssiLusip 'jBinBejJj pue |e69|[j Ajsjgue SBM {uei.uiuioddB |ES}JU! jei| pue fejfeo p ssiujep ei|} p SJBSA ei. p esdes e jsye iueuitUiodciB jo, uo!;eo|ida"e speiu jeuogi}sd eyt leq; punojB eqi uo 'ieunqui eijl •QBunqui eij}, yoys jo^) jndiBqer 'ieunqi.ii sAsejisiuitupv ysepsjd eAqpen 94} ejojeq QOOZ ^o 69ZS.'°N uo!}B3i|ddv leuiBuo psnssui jeuoffjied sijt 'uoipe eAoqe 94} Aq p9A8u6Be Sujjssj •g tp- •peieuiiujs} SBA'I tueiuiuiodde jei| '6661-Zl-SE. psiep jepjo soiyo Aq 'fBjfeo psseeosp 941 ys jieq |e6ei e }ou si jsuoiyted 94} leijt puno.lB si^ uo 'uo ja}8~! 'jeLjoeei IUB}S!SSV }o }sodeqt Ot punojB stBuoissediuoo uo ggsi. -8-Zl. uo jai) p9}UioddB ssi}uoifine sieis - stuspuodssj ei|i 'uoiteoiidde jeq Buuopisuoo 'punojS 9iBUo|ssediuo3 uo tusuisuiodde o? peiiiius ssw. fyS. F ""'r;i!,,.!:it.* l'ibki*»S*!!MusaAatA!f.> 4. On the other hand, iearned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents - State authorities, while supporting the impugned order of the Tribunal, would submit that there was fatai deiay on the part of the petltioner in moving the application for appointment on compassionats ground; 12 years of delay was enormous delay and in the ight of severa! judgments of the Supreme Court no relief could be granted to the petitioner. 5. Having heard Isarned counse! for the parties, the short question that arises for decision is whether the respondents - State authorities acted iiiegaliy and not justified in ferminating the appointment of the petitioner offered to her eariier on compassionate ground, vide order dated 13-12-1999. At the threshold, It needs to be noticed that by departing from the mandate of Articie 16(1) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of Sndia, as a socio-economic measure, the provision to offer appointment on compassionate ground has been sustained by the Constitutional Courts in this country. It is weli settled that ths appointment on compassionate ground is nof a method of recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabllitation of the famiiy in distress for reiieving the dependent family members of the decsased employee from destitution. !n other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enabte penurious famiiy to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is nof to provide employment. it is aiso weli settied that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members cou!d sustain themseives financially from other sources of income. !t is also well settled that the deiay in making application for compassionate appointment is a weighty and good ground to deny compassionate appointment. ^ 6. in Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh , an employee died in harness ieaving behind him a minor sori. As per the compassionate appointment scheme, three years' iimitation after attaining majority was prescribed. The minor son made an appiication beyond the stipulated time. The High Court's interpretation of the phrase "three years time for making such request in case of minors" as "in case of minors the period of three years would be applicable from the date hs becomes major" was set aside by the Supreme Court on chalienge. The Apex Court held that if the family members of the deceased employee can manage for 14 years after his dsath, one of his legai heirs cannot put- forward a claim as though it is line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The whoie object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the famiiy to tide over the sudden financial crisis befalien the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its soie earning member. In the premise of thsse principles governing appointments on compassionate ground, when v/e look at the facts of this case, we shouid say that no case is made out for our interference for exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. In this writ petition, the age of the petitloner is shown to be 35 years. The writ petition was fiied in the year 2000 and Gajraj dled on 9- 12-1983, i.e., end of the year 1983. Undeniably, as on the date of the dsath of the deceased Gajraj, the petitioner was major. We are at a loss to understand why if the petitioner was realiy solely dependent on the income of the late Gajraj, slept over the matter without claiming appointment on compassionate ground for a long period of 12years. (1997)880085 /^ :-'^. 'tTi°^<^s^~S^i Although the pieadings do not disciose when the petitionsr married, that is to say.whether before or after the demise ofthe deceased Gajraj, learned counsel for the petitioner wouid submit, on our query, that she married after the demise of the deceased Gajraj. Looking from that angie also, a married woman, it couid not be said, was dependent not on the income of the husband, but, was soiely dependent on the income of very distant relative by 4-5 degrees from the common pedigree. That is a!so a circumstance which throws serious doubt about the senuineness of the c!aim of the petitioner. 7. Be that as It may, inordinate de!ay of 12 years, in our considered opinion and in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, is fatal to claim appointment on compassionate ground. !n that view of the mafier, we cannot take any exception to the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. - Sd/- CbiefJustice Sd/- Safish K. Agnihotri Judge w^""9syss3^ir