wiELE 3W {U4- rmL IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) ( WRIT PETITION (S) No. ‘ 1 5 b /200€(§B.) ® PETITIONER :. MPreetam Dongre, S/o Late M.L. Dongre Aged about 25 years, R/o Kalkapara, Ward No. 1 Near Sala no. 3 Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS z/ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Co— operative Societies, Raipur. (C.G.) Societies 00 ‘Q$ Registrar, Co—operative x ,4 (Audit), Raipur (C.G.) $Cf‘ \\ y‘x’S 9? Assitant Registrar, Co—operative Q~ WG « Societies (Audit) Raipur. (C.G.) .. m$vg0 ‘‘ ‘zx g 5é“ (\i * C94 State pf M.P. Through, Secretary Mr x \ \ q, q} epartment of Co-operative Societies, Ballabh Bhawan, Bhopal. Q‘y A\) x9 $3“ epée§§x $9Q9 egg ®\ °¢5§fv§§$ 5. Union of India through, Secretary, Department of Human Resources, New Delhi (India) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2/26 OF THE ' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER OF LIKE NATURE ETC. , The humble petition of above name petitioner: — MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH \399 4 tof / W A ‘\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI5EARH AT BILASPUR WrH' Pefifion (s) No. 1156 of 2007 Pefifioner Free-tam Dongre VerSus Respondents Stow of Chha‘ffisgar‘h 6¢ afhers Sing!e Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Jusfice Safish K. Agniha‘rrf. V\ Presenf: Mr'. Vivek Sharmu, Advocafe for fhe pefifioner'. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer f‘ar' The Stafe/ respondenf No. 1 to 3. ORDER (Passed on 2B“ Day of Fabruary, 2007) 1. By This pefifion, The perifioner seeks a writ of mandamus direc‘ring The respondenfs 1*0 consider fhe case of fhz pe’rifioner‘ for compassiona’re appoinfmenf. The pefifioner fur‘rher seeks for issuance of a wrH of cerfiot'ar‘i quashing fhe potty/circular dm‘ed 2-2-2006. The fafher of fhe pefifioner, whiie working as Co-opem‘five Inspecfor in fhe office of Camperai‘ive Sociefies (Audi‘r), Governmenf of Chha‘Hisgar‘h, Roipur died on 07-11-1995 in harness. If appears Thai fhe pefifioner has made an applica‘rion offer 20m on attaining The age of 18 years and furfher offer having passed Higher Secondary School Cerfificufe Exom'inafion. No specific dofe was shied eifher in fhe pieodings or in fhe argumenfs. I1- oppears ihai vide order da'l'ed 21.1.2004, issued by ‘ihe Assisfanf Regisfrar, Co-operofive Sociei‘ies (Audi‘i) “the pefiiioner was informed The following order of fhe Cour? was passed by Sofish K. Agnihofri, J. that The compassionafe appoinfmenf cannof be granfed To him in View of fhe memo dafed 10-6-2003, issued by the General Adminisi'mtion Deparfmem‘, Governmem' of Chhah‘isgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur‘. Thereafter, one more applica‘fion was made on 20.01.2006. The éame was also rejecfed vide order dated 3.4.2006 holding thaf as per new circukxr dafed 2.2.2006, all the legal heirs/dependenfs of fhe deceased employee, who died nffer 1.11.1997, can be considered for compassionafe appoinfment In The present case, fa‘lher' of The pefifioner' died on 7.11.1995 fhus, his claim was rejecfed. The pefifioner has filed This wriT peTiTion sTaTing ThaT The circular/policy daTed 2.2.2006 is unreasonable, discriminaTory and noT in consonance wiTh The spiriT of The ConsTiTuTion of India. His case is covered by The order daTed 20.1.2006 passed in W.P. No. 304/2006. However, The peTiTioner has noT asigned any reason why policy of The STaTe GovernmenT should be quashed. The policy, in normal circumstances may noT be inTerfered wiTh by The High CourT, excepT in The case of being un—consTiTuTional, arbiTrary and un-reasonable. The STaTe Government has granTed several appoin‘lmenTs on The basis on policy doTed 2.2.2006 and circular daTed 10.6.2003. This policy daTed 10.6.2003 came inTo consideraTion before This CourT, also in several peTiTions and This CourT has direcTed To consider The cases in accordance wiTh The policy daTed 2.2.2006. Thus, The prayer wiTh regard To quashing of The policy is rejecTed. The prayer for consideration of The case of The peTiTioner on The basis of The old policy daTed 10.6.2003 is noT susTainable as afTer creaTion of 5TaTe of ChhaTTisgarh under The provisions of MP. Re-organizoTion ACT, 2000, The previous 5TaTe 5/? Gavemmenf has issued a policy dafed 10.6.1994 and The presenf 51'ate éovernmem' has issued a policy dafed 1.5.2000. Thus, if cannof be direci'ed 1‘0 consider The case of fhe pefifioner‘ in view of fhe old policy which has been superceded by The subsequent poiicy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner 0f Public Insimcfions and ofhers vs. KR. Vishwanafh‘, while dealing wi+h +he quesfion of The objecf of fhe compassiona‘l'e appainfmem, observed as under :- “9. As ww observed in Sfafe of Haryana v. Rani Dev}, if need no? be poinfed cu? fhcri ihe claim of person concerned for appoinimem on compassionai'e ground is based on the premises Thai he was dependant on ihe deceased employee Siricfiy This ciaim conno’r be upheid on ’rhe Touchs‘ione of Arficies 14 or 16 of ihe Consii’ru’rion. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on The basis of sudden crisis occurring in fhe family of such employee who has served fhe Sio’re and dies while in service. Thai is why if is necessary for the aui‘hori‘l'ies To frame rules, regulo‘i'ions or lo issue such adminisiro‘iive orders which can siond fhe fest of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in—harness scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespecfive of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi easel if was held that s'cheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In LIC of Ino‘ia v. Asha Ramchhandm Ambekmgwi/ poinfed ouf fhai' High Courts and Administrafive Tribunals cannof confer benedicfion impeHed by sympofhefic considerations To make appoinfments on ccmpassionai'e graunds when fhe reguim‘ions framed in respecf thereof do no? cover and confempiafes such oppoinfmen‘l's. IT was no’red in Umm‘} Kumar Ncypa/ v. Sfafe 0f Ha’yandg- +ha+ as a rule in pubiic service appoini'menf should be made sfricfiy on fhe basis of open invifafion of applicafions and merit The appoin'i'menf on compassionaie ground is no'r anofher source of recruifmem‘ but mereiy an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of empioyee 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 mode in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased." “10. In Sushma Easain v. Union of Ina‘iaé 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 Phoa/wafi v. Union oflndia§ and Union of India v. Bhagwan 5019/1? In Director of Education {5econo’aty) v. Pushpendra Kumarz, if was observed ‘rhai' in ma‘rfer of compassionafe appoin'l‘merrr *her‘e cannof be insisfence for a par’ricular post Ouf 0f purety humanifarian considerm‘ion and having regard io fhe fac‘l' fhuf unless some source of livelihood is provided fhe family wouid no? be able io make bofh ends meet provisions are made for giving appoinimenf To one of The dependanfs 0f fhe deceased who may be eligible for appoin‘lmeni. Care has, however, .fo be faken fhm provision for ground of compassionafe employmenf which is in fhe na‘l'ur'e of an excepfion 1'0 1+1e general provisions does no‘l' unduly inierfere wifh fhe righf of fhose ofher’ per-sons who are eligible for appoinfmenf To seek oppoinfmen‘i' ogainsf fhe post which would have been available, bui for The provision enabling appoinfment ‘ being mode on compassionaie grounds of fhe dependoni of fhe deceased employee. As if is in fhe ncdure of excepfion fo the general provisions if canno‘l subsfifufe the provision fo which if is an excepfion and Thereby nullify the main provision by faking away completely 'ihe righf conferred by The main provision." IT is weil seTTled ThoT The appoinTmenT on compassionoTe ground is noT a meThod of recruiTmenT. buT, is a faciliTy To provide for immediaTe rehabiliToTion of The family in disTress for relieving The dependenT family members of The deceased employee from desTiTuTion. In oTher words, The objecf of compassionaTe appoinTmenT is To enable penurious family To Tide over The sudden financial 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 compossionaTe appoinTmenT if The Q family members could susTain Themselves financially from oTher sources of income. The Supreme CourT, in sfafe of J' d k’ and afhers vs. .5qjad Ahmed Mirf, afTer having considered all The aspeci's of compassionaTe appoimmenf, observed as under :- “11, if is fhaf such an appoinfmen‘l‘ is an excepfion 1'0 fhe general rule. Normaily, an employmem‘ in fhe aovemmenf or' ofher‘ public sectors shouki be open 1'0 a” eligible candidates who can come forward To apph: and compele wifh each ofher. If is in consonance wilh Arficle 14 of fhe Consfil'u‘l'ion. On The basis of compe'i‘ifive meri‘rs, an appoinfmenf shauld be made lo public office. This general rule §nould ne’r be departed from excep‘l‘ where compelling circumsl'ances demand, such as, deafh of fhe sole breadwinner and likelihood of The family suffering because of fhe sefback. Once ii is proved lhaT in spife of the death of The breadwinner, fhe family survived and subsfanfial period is over, 'ihere is no necessify fo say “goodbye” 1'0 fhe normal rule of appoinfmenf and To show favour fo one of fhe cosf of The inTeresTs of several oThers ignoring The mandaTe of ArTicle 14 of The ConsfiTui'ion." 10. Applying The seTTled principle of low as enunciafed by The Hon'ble Supreme CourT in various cases (supra), iT is well seTTled Thai' The compassionaTe appoinTmenT, which is noT in accordance wiTh The consTiTuTionai scheme of employment is To miTigaTe The hardships caused due To unfimely deaTh of The employee. In The presenT case, The peTiTioner died on 07-11-1995, The peTiTioner has noT Taken any sTep immediafely even «Her affaining fhe age of mqjari‘ry. Thus, 1'he pefifioner cannof be grunfed any reiief. Subhosh 11. As a resuh‘, for fhe reasans sfafed hereinabove, fhe wrif pefifion is dismissed. No order as fa cosfs. 9 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I 1 2 f (2005) 7 SCC 206 (2006) 5 SCC 766 Sd/- J I I