Qi) c^' ^p •^^7^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) -7J2<[. OF 2010 PETITIONER : Sheetal Prasad Rajak, S/o Late Chhedilal Rajak, aged about 31 years, R/o Village-Post/ Mangla, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ; ^'.^" .' ^' ^' ^ 'ip^. 1 «i ^M- ^^-r^ g ^ ^ «, / s II %. *^x. /^ / 'V^N. ^^ ..^t^ ^ "£^3SS^'^- ^'^^¥ '.^•:>fyr' .-•^y ^..^' ..^ .^^ ./^ ^" s<y sVl -^ ©^' ^ (1) State of Chhattisgarh/ Through Principal Secretary General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) (2) Additional Secretary General Administration Department Govt. of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^ (3) Managing Director, CIDC, Shashtri Chowk Raipur, Raipur(C.G.) € (4) Divisional Manager CIDC, Bus Stand Bilaspur Distt. BiJaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 725 of2010 PETITIONER : Sheetal Prasad Rajak. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Otliers. WRIT PETITION UTsrDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'tole Shn Satish K. Agmliotri, J. Present: SM Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri N.N.Roy, Panel La^er for the State/respondents. ORALQRDER (Passed on 19th day of Febmary, 2010) 1, Chalienge m this petition is to the order dated 28.12.2005 (.4imexure P/l) passed by the Additional Secretaiy, General Administi'ation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur whereby the Chief General Manager, Clihattisgai'h Infrastmcture Development Coiporation (tbr short 'the CIDC'), Raipur was iiifbiTOLed that tlie policy vvith regard to gi'ant of compassionate appointment ofthe State of CMiattisgarh is not applicable in case of death of the employees of Corporations/ Boards/Tribunals etc. 2. The facts, in briet, as projected by the petitioner are that the father ofthe petitioner namely Chhedilal Rajak while working as Blackstiiitli, Class II, in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Traiisport Corporation (for short 'the MPSRTC'), died on 13.06.1997, in hamess. At the relevant time, the deceased employee was posted at Bilaspur Depot. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointnient. The Deputy Collector, Bilaspur, vide memo dated 28.8.1999 (Aiinexiire 3. P/3), addressed to the Managmg Director, MPSRTC, Bhopal, infbnned tliat compassionate appointment may be given to ftie dependents ofthe deceased employee ofthe MP8RTC in the MPSRTC itselfand not in any other govenmient depailment. Accordingly, the case of petitioner was retumed to the MP8RTC. Thereafter, vide communication dated 29.6.2000, the Assistaiit Labour & Personnel Officer, MPSRTC, iiiibmied the petitioner that fhere is a ban fbr gi'aiit of compassionate appointoent, but for deciding fhe case, fomialities are required to be done and the petitioner was directed to make proper application in appropriate format. After foi<mation of the State of ClAattisgarh, the State Road Transport Corporation was merged and a new Corporation namely Chhattisgarh Mrastmcture Development Coiporation, came into existence. Ttie petitioner, on 8.9.2008, wrote to the Managing Director, CIDC, for gi'aiit of compassionate appointment. Thereafter, under the Right to Infoniiation Act, 2005, the petitioner again made an application seeking cun'ent status of his case. Vide conimunication dated 1.11.2008, the Managing Director, CIDC infonned the Joint Collector, Bilaspur that the policy with regard to compassionate appointment of the State of Clihattisgarh is not applicable to the dependents ofthe deceased employee ofthe erstwhile MP8RTC. On pemsal of the documents, it is found that the petitioner has not amiexed a copy of the application fbr grant of compassionate appointment. Further, it is also not clear asto whom the petitioner made the applicatioiL whether to the State Govermnent or the MPSRTC. The petitioner has also not filed any circular/policy of either the State of Madhya Pradesh, Cliliattisgarh, MPSRTC or the CIDC, nor has pleaded ^ Aimt 7. ^ anytliing in regard to gi-ant of compassionate appoinbiient. Thus, for wasit ofrelevant documents, it is not possible to examine the allegations made by the petitioners aiitf to hold that the mipugtied orders are in'egular, improper or bad in law. Further, it is well settled prmciple of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method ofrecmitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress fbr relievingthe dependent family members ofthe deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide overthe sudden tmancial crisis and is not to provide employment. (See : Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Smgh1, State ofManipur v. A^Id. Rajaodw?, and State ofJ Sc K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mi^ ). The deceased, Chhedilal Rajak died on 13.06.1997. Thereafter, tlie petitioner has sustained himselftill date for more than 12 years. Thus, the veiy pm'pose of grant of compassionate appointment does not survive atthis stage. Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts ofthe case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition, waiTanting interference. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge (1997) 8 SCC 85 2 .^UR 2003 SCW 4339 3 2006 (5) SCC 766