e P \e^>^-^ INTHE^HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR < W*Wi3i,.| W.P. (S) N<». 3 ^ / /2007 :^3lfy^ ^•"Nl»H Petitioner t-/7 <fy .^^ ^^1-- ..••<(*"<'^" .n;.y' \-f" ^ €' <?'<'"' ^," "»' ,'s'' v •>-''•"' Respondents Ajay Kumar Lariya, S/o. Late Ratnu ram Lariya, aged about 26 years, lo^ •»& ' " of Danteshwari Ward No.12, Nishad Para, Kawardha (Now District Kabirdham) (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Panchayat 85 Rural Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) o-^ : 2) Development •f^v1. ^^> ^"s^^. ,ia ai'iffa"1^'... Comniissioner, Chhattisgarh Panchayat & Rural Developinent, Raipur (C.G.) : 3) Assistant Development Commissioner, Janpad Panchayat, Borla, District Kawardha. (C.G.) ^<vqc y^ '%y^~^yv '^;'y-''fs«>'~: '*&..'fSS^S'S .1°° ^ :4) Collector, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) : 5) Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Kawardha (C.G.) -^: r WRIT PETITION JJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOW OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WMTS. ORDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS etc. ^' y a. HIOH CaUB.T O&JUDICATURR GHHArrtSOAKH^BUASPUR Si^e Bench: Hoa'bte Stel Satteli K. AgnShotrl, J. W.P.ISINo. 867 of 2007 Petitioiier : Ajay Kumar Larya Vcrsus Respondeut : Statc of Chhatti^arh & others Smt. Hainida Siddque, Advocate for Ifae petttioiicr. Shd V. V. S. Murtliy, Deputy Advocate General wifh Shri Arvmd Dubey, Paael lawyer &r thc respondents/State. ORMSR (Passed on thts 8th d^ ofMarch, 2007) 1. According to teamed couiisel appearing &r the petttioiier, (fae father of the petitioner namely Shri Ratnu Ram Lariya, was workiug as Peon in the Btoek of&ce at Borla Distrfct Kawardha wifh. fhe respondents/Stete, when he died on 25.12.1991 in hamess. 2. Tfae petitioiier, beiag dependant-legal hair of the deeeased, saaSe an appMcation for appoiubnent on compassioaate basis oa 24.6.1999 (Annesnire P/3). Thereafter the petitioner fited a& application to the respondent No.4 on 27.11.1999. Tfae case offhe petitioiier, abng wifh other similariy situated persons, was recominend to the Govemment vide letter dated 17.4.2002 (Aniiexiire P/6) but the respondents have not yet granted compassionate ^)pointment to the petitioner. 3. Leamed counsel appcaring for the petitioner subinits fhat fhe petitioner is entifled to appointment on compassionate baste. 4, The petitioiier has fited tfais petition with imexplamed and mordinate delay, seeking a directiou to fhe respondcnts to grant compasskmate appoiatment The fathfir of the petitioner diai on 25.12.1991 aad the pctitioner appUed fbr compasaionate appomtinent on 24.6.1999. 5. It is weU setfted fhat the appointaient ou coinpassmnate gxound is not a inethDd of recruitment, but, is a facflily to provide for uuniediate rehabilitatioa of fhe fam3y in distress for relteving fhe depeadent fauuly inembera of fhe deceased emptoyce flxwn destitution. In ofher words, the object of (X>mpE»sionate appointment is to euable penurious famfly to tide over the suddea financial crisis and is not to provide employment It is also weU setfkd that merc death of fhe eiaptoyee does not eutttte his famfly to claim compassionate appointm.eat if fhe fannify members could sustaia theinselves fiixaiicialfy finia ofher souices ofmcome. 6. In Haryaaa State Etectrlctty Board and another Vs. HaUm Sia^t {(1997) 8 SCC 85 } fhe Supremc Court held tfaat "fee whote object of auy compassionate appoio.tnicnt scheme is to give su<»or to the fainfly to tide over fhe sudden finaacial crisis befalten the dependents on account of fhe untimely demise of its sote canung inember.*' 7. The Supreme Court iu fhe case ofStrte ofJ &> K aad otliers Vs. Sqjad Alund Mfa { (2006) 5 S.C.G 766 }, in para 11 has held as iinder:- II......... ...it is that such an appouitment is an exception to the general rule. Normalty, an employment m fhe Govenuaent or ofh.er publie sectors should be open to aU eMgibte candidates who can come foiward to appfy and com.pete with. each otfaer. It is in oonsonattce wifti Articte 14 of fhe Coiistitution. On tte basis of competitivc merits, an appointmcut shoirid be made to pubUc office. Tfais geaeral rule should Cbot be departed finm except whcre compeUing circumslances deinand, sucb as, deafli of fhfi sote breadwuuier and liketihood offhe fanufy sufifering because of the sefback. Once it is proved that ia spite of the dcath of the breadwinaer, the fanaify survivcd and substantial pcriod is over, there is 110 necessity to say "goodbye* to the acamal nile ofappoiatment aad to show favour to oias at fhc cost of the interests of several othera ignoring the mandate ofArtfcte 14 offhe Coustitutfon." Thakur 8. In view of the above settted principles of law, there is no merit ia this petition. The petition is accordmgfy dismissed suinmanfy. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^-