¥iaii~5o-Moimii.ESloo'SH^db" Ze?792?~I'ioiTO9:'-Haam~]Miii3S<i1 IiaM eqjos •S'd'.I'E 'PJeog ^q.xoT.t'^os-ca s^'eq.g UcE'essT^q.'Buuo 'jssB-cgus JSTCO *£ / (3-0) jndT^H 'pjBog^'j-TO-tjq.osTs sq.'eq.g tJj'eSs-cq.q.BUUo 'jssuTSug: JSTUO •g ^•/ 'fe'O) •indT'Ba 'awveuQ'yQ 'pj'eog j?'4.T:s>TJ:q.os-[g qq.'ea.g UJ'BSSTCI.I.EUUO -(f'i'B1'eJ°3S :uSnojL.;i :uj'B3sTq.').Bui70 jo sq.'eq.g •[. / •SA •CS-0) 'eqjo^ ysxa 'BjovSl.E^ :u^i 'jndi-Bdoo 'o'd ' TpnnTOEug 'S^Z'Ofi ssnoH T:1.BAetaP'e(I *0 J° q.aspTSsj 'sj-es^^s q.noGl'e PaS's 'p'esBjct'j'-o sq.B-t jo jsq.tSn'Bp 'p-es-Bj^ BC'TJTQ-mns'o rt^-,^° ^ f^\ ..^- <!^i^sy"^ . n' "Z-./V<>' 'voy -£-^'w.t -: s T3aSQag^ .-^ s^ <^ /'^&A Af -.••'' /'v/^< ** 1'-?*' / :aSol£ias:<i ^oos'lo ^/&'/''oT'roi£,i3Sd^Im THHTOsSSisio) aaasnia 2v-smOTDi53T-Io-a§aoo Hi)iH-SHi-ii ./&°\ s --5 "'K!''i'.K ^ ' •)-.. HBGH COURT OF JITOICATORB CHHATnseARH; BUASPUK Siagle Beacli: Hoa'ble Slurt Satish K. AgBihotri, J. W. P.JIo. 1216 of 2006 P6titioner : C, Kuni. Girija Prasad Versus Respondent : Statc of Chhattisgarh & ofhers Dr. Sfaailesh Attuja, Advocatc for the petftfoner. | Shri A. S. Gaharwar, Advocate for tfae respondents. ORDBR (Passed on this 14th day ofDecember, 2006) 1. The father ofthe petitioner aainety Shri C. J. Prasad was workii^ as Assistaat Grade-II in the office of the Bxecutwe Engineer (Bhandai), Hansdeo Thermal Powcr House, Madhya Pradesh ElecrtrK;ity Board, Korba (West^. The father ofthe petitioner was inissing fix>m 2.6.1995. Thereafter wife of Shri C.J. Prasad (inissing employee) filed a civil siiit ia the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Kalghora. Lcaraed Cjvil Court videjudgment dated 9.7.2003 decreed fhe suit declaring fhe missmg employee Shri. C. J. Prasad as dead. 2. The petitioner, daughter of Shri C. J. Prasad, being dependent le^I heir of fhe deceased employee sought for coinpassionate appoiatment. The respondents after liaving considered fhe case ofthe petittoner for com.passionate, has passed fhc oider dated 28.11.2005 (Annexure P/1) to fhe efiFect that fhe petitmner is not entttted to get coinpsssionate appointment. 3. The petitioner has filed fhis petition seeking a direction to fhe respondents to grant compassionate appointtnent to the petitioner. -\ l./- 4. Be that as it may, fhe fafher of the petitioner was missing for ttie 10 years aad fhe petitioncr did not have aay finaiicial problein duriiig thte period. The veiy purpose of pant of coinpassionate appoiatment is to prcwide succor to fanuly to tide over fiuancial crisis. 5. It is well settled that fhe appointinent on coiupassiouate ground is not a m.efh.od of recruitment, but, is a fecilily to piovide for iinmediate rehabflitatiDn of the fainily ia distress fer relieving the dependent fanuly membcrs of fhe deceased eniployee fiTom destitution. lu ofherwords, fhe object ofcompassionate appointmerit is to enable penurious fanufy to tide over fhe sudden financial crisis and is not to provide einploymeut. It is also weU setflcd fhat inere deafh of fhe employee does not entifle his fauniity to claim compassionate appomtment if fhe feunfly members could sustain theniselves finEiaciatly fiom other sources ofincome. 6. In Haryana State Electiidty Board and another Vs. HaUm Sin^i { (1997) 8 SCC 85 } the Supreme Court held that "fhe whole object of any compasskmatB appointaient schenie is to givc succor to the fainily to tide over fhe sudden financial crisis befaUen fhe dependents on account ofthe untimely deinise ofits sole eaniing member.'' 7, The Supreme Court in fbe case of State of J & K and others Va. St^ad Ahmd Mir { (2006) 5 S.C.C. 766 }, in para 11 has heM as under:- "11............it is fhat such an appoiutinent is an exception to the general rule. NormaUy, aa employmeat in the Govermnent or other pubUc sectors should be open to aU eligible candidates who can com.e foiwaid to apply aad coiupete with each ofh.er. It is m consonance with Artfcte 14 of the Constitutton. On fhe basis of coinpetitive merits, an appointment should bc made to public ofiEk'e. This geneTal rute should not be departed fioin except where coinpeUmg cucuinstances demHud, such as, ^•-.. Thakur deafh. of the sole breadwianer and Itelihood of fhe famUy suffering because ofthe setback. Once it is pioved that in spitd of the dcafh of fhe breadwinner, fhe famity suwived and substantial pcriod is over, there is ao necessity to say "goodbye" to the noniial rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several ofhers ignoring the inandate ofArticlc 14 ofthe Coastitution." 8. Iu view of ftie above settled priaciples of law there is no naerit in ttu^ petitfon. The petition is accordingly disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "f-