RESPONDgNTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATT55GARH : BILASFUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3639 OF 2004 Om Prakash Patel, aged about 22 yeals, S/o Late Khem Rai Patel. R/o villag'e Kallu Bajary. Tah. Churiya, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) . Versus Union of India, Through the Secreiary, Department of Personnel Public Grievance and Pension, Third Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. sate of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secremry, Depanment of Panchayat & Samaj Kaiyan, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Samaj Kalyan, Valiabh Bhawan, Mantrataya, Bhopal (MP). Secretary,’ General Administration Department. Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Director, Panchayat and Same} Seva, Raipur (CG). Deputy Director, Panchayat 8: Samaj Seva, Rajandgaon (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri $atish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate appears on behaif of Shri S.K. Beriwai, counsel for the Union of indie/respondent No.1. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for State of Chhattiswrh. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 1 1‘" day of August, 200a) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him appointment on compassionate ground. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the father of the petitioner namely, Late Shri Khem Rai Patel working as Gram,Sahayak, Ambagarh Chowki under the Assistant Director, Panchayat and Samaj Kalyan, Rajnandgaon, died on 15-84996, which is .t L/ evident from Annexure—P/3, in harness. The petitioner made an application before the respondent authorities on 2-8-2001 (Annexure-P/4), which was considered and rejected by the authorities on 14~1 -2004 (Anenxure-Pl7) on the ground that the father of the petitioner died before 1-1 1-2000 i.e. before formation of the State of Chhattisgarh. 3) Shri Anthony, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is fuiiy eligible and entitled for getting appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that the petitioner is the elder son of the deceased employee. Learned counsel prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 4) Per contra, Ms. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that the State Government has taken a decision not to consider 6% those cases wherein the Government employee had died before 1-1 1-1997. ln the present case, father of the petitioner died on 15-&1996. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. , , 5) Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden tinancial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of INCome. 6) ln the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh‘ the Hon‘ble Supreme Court heid that “the whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole eaming member.“ a 7) The Supreme Court in the matter of state of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin2, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under: “11. In Smt, Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of fndia and Ors. {1989 (4) SCC 468} it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any deiay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadv 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 specifmlly 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 Phoolwafi (Smt) v. Union of India & Om, {1991 Supp (2) SCC 689} and Union of indie & Ora. v. Bhagwan Singh {1995 (6) SCC 476}. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors, {1998 (5) SCC 192}, it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot’ be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be abie to make both ends meet provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible 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 general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right 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 of the 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 nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main prowsmn." m ; 8) ln the matter of State of J 8. K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court aEer having considered all the aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 11 observed as under :- “11 ...... it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open 2 AIR 2003 scw 4339 3 (2006) 5 soc 766 to a" eligible candidates who can come forward to appiy and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public ofiice. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye“ to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." m . 9) Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on .hand wherein the father of the petitioner died well before the formation of State of Chhattisgarh i.e. on 15-8-1996 and thatthe Government has taken a decision not to consider those cases wherein the Government employee had died before 1-11~1 997, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. l \a Sd/- Judge Satish K. Agnihotri Gowri