@ HIGH COURT OF CHEAT ISGARH AT BI ASPUR ‘ I WRIT PETITION No. 3458 of 2004 PETITIONER : Rakesh Prasad Yadaw s/o Late Rajendra Prasad Yadaw, Aged about 25 years, R10 Bidpara, Chaitangali, Thesil — Sarangarh, Distt. ‘ Raigarh (C.G.) . VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. Union of India, Through: its Secretary, Depamnent of Persomwl, New Delhi. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Depamnent of Educatiom D.K.S, Bhawan: Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh Through its Secrotary, Department of Education, Ballav Bhawam Bhopal, (MP) 4. District Education Officer, Raigarh (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aggjllotl'i, J. Present: Shri Aj ay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AKBarik, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri S.K.Beriwal, Standing Counsel for the Union oflndia. Shri Rakesh Jha, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.2 and 4. ' ORAL ORDER {Passed on 10a; day of February, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2. .. fThe facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner'naniely Rajendra Prasad Yadaw was working as Lower Division Teacher at Govemment > Higher Secondary School, Sarangarh. Rajendra Prasad Yadaw died on 31.91.1996 (Annexure P/l) in harness. After his death. the son i.e. the petitioner made an application and thereaner certain reminders and also a revised application (Annexure P/2 and'E/3) to the respondents for compassionate appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date, the petitioner has not been gamed compassionate appointment. The respondents have even not decided the representations and 'i sen \ applications made by the petitioner. \l 3. Be that as it mzw; it is well sealed that campassionate appointment §s not in accordance with Tins constitutional scheme of empioyment and is a back—doof e11t1y. Moreovar, it is now weil settled that appointmem on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter ofright. The grant of compassionate appointment is to provide succor and relief to the dependent members who had become penurious on the death of the read earner of the family. The petitioner has survived since the year 1996 till 2001 without any assistance from any source. 4, On perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has made an application for grant of compassionate appointment for the first time on 11.7.2001 i.e. atter a period of about 5 1/2 years of the date of death of his father. There is considerable delay of S 1/2 years on the part of the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment. 5. The Homble Supreme Court in Stare ofJ&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed M’ir’, in para ll regarding delay in seeking compassionate appointment held as under: “Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the ‘breadwiimer, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “good-bye” to the normal rule of appointmem and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others ignorma the mandate of Article 14 ofthe Constitution ” 6. Further, the Hon’hle Supreme Court in Commissioaer of Pablic Jmmzcz‘z‘om and others vs. KR. Vishwanaa‘h‘i, While dealing with the question of the object of the compassionate appointment, observed as , 'h under :- “§. As was observed in State ofHaiyana v. Rani Devil, it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned 1 (2006) 5 scc 766 2 (2005) 7 scc 206 for appointment on compassionate ground is based on ihe I premises that he ‘was dependant 0n ihe deceased empleyea. Strictly this c1aim cannoi be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 ofthe Constitution. Howeven such ciaim is considered as reasonable and pennissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. T’nat is why it is necessaijy for the authorities to name ruies, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Aiticies 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter ofright, Die-in-harness scheme cannot be made appiicable to all types of p0sts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased. employee. In Rani Devi casel it was heid that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to ail types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. in LIC oflna’z'a V. Asian Ramchhandra Ambekar; it was pointed dut that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impeiled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments. it was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Harycma; that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but mereiy an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family Without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition ofthe family ofthe deceased.” “. In Sushma Gosaz‘ri V. Union oflmiz'ai it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should: therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above View was reiterated in Phooiwarz‘ v. Union Qf‘fndia; and Lin.o. oflndz‘a v. Bhagwan Singhé. In Director of Education (Secondary) v. Push endra Kumarl, it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there 1b cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitaxian consideration aiid havi11g regard te ihe fact that unless some source of 1ive1ihood is provided the family wouid not be abie to make both endg meet, provisioos are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants ofthe deceased Who may be eligihle for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the generai provisions does not unduly interfere with the light of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant ofthe deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nuilify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.” 7. It is thus clear from the decisions cited above that the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment by virtue of a right of inheritance. Even otherwise, the considerable delay of S 1/2 years on the part of the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment is unsustainable as being unexplained. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, M(W)P No. 3027/2004, also stands dismissed. k/ Sd’- Satish K’ . Judge \O 0m 5» \