:aB GK- -T ssla!iftiTrS-; ^r^ 'Sl- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRITPETITIQN (S)No. 1698 !NTS Kandesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Shobha Ram Chandrafcar Age about 28 Years, Un-Employed Hathi Dabri : Durg. g at VERSUS : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ghadi Chowk, G.E. Road, RAIPUR. 2. The Executive Engineer, E/M Division, Public Works Department, 3. The Superintending Engineer, E/M, Division, Public Works Department, RAIPUR. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, E/M Sub Division, Public Works Departmeat, DURG. Present: Shri B.P.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the S (Passed on 22" ofMarch, 2007) 1. The father of the petitioner namely Late Shri Shobha Ram Chandrakar died on 17.04.1993 while working as Helper in Class IV Category, P.W.D. Durg. The mother ofthe petitioner made aa ."1 application on behalf of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on 7.12.1996. The said appointment has aot been Sranted till date. Thereafter, one more application was made on 13.11.2006 for grant of compassionate appointment which was also not considered by the respondent authorities. Vide letter dated 27.11.2003 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was informed that the application for the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he was aot qualified for appointment on compassionate basis. The petitioner has filed this petition oa 8.3.2007 after a period of about 14 years seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus/direction to the respondents to consider his case for grant of compassionate 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the ease of Comimsswner of Public Instrucfions snd others vs. K.R Vishwanath, white dealing with the question of the object of the compassionate appointment, observsd as under:- "9. As was observed m State of Haryana v. Rcaii Devi1, it need not be pointed out that tfae claim ofperson concemed for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on fhe deceased employee. Strictly tliis claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissibl&'on the basis of sudden crisis occumng in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame mles, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test ofArticles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of ?!ff-.,..-y.:^^"^ ~T~: ^f's .l»^l»!UW.,^pl^-".IW •'^S3i{?s0^''$?"??^^°?^''^^'?rf"?:'^l'^3'"i^:''':''^^^ ^aii^^i—Ma \. A right. Die-in-hamess scheme cannot be made applicable to alllypes ofposts irrespective ofthe nature ofservice rendered by tfae decsased employee. InRcsm Devi case1 it was held that scfaeme regarding appeintment on compassionate ground ifextended to all types of casua! or ad hbc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot bejystified on constitiitional grounds. In I1C oflndia^. Asha Ramchhcmdra Ambekai31 it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled 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 Haryan^ that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on tfae basis ofopen invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely ah exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means ofiivelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appoiatments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instroctions.Jaking into consideration the iinancial condition ofthe family ofthe deceased." "10. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of Inditf- 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 t^ -^^. ^ compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earaer in the familv. Such appointments should, therefore, be immediately to redeem the family in distress. The tact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwi.se, to state that as and when sucfa minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phool-wati v. Union oflndi^ and Union of India v. Bhagwan Sing^. In Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar1, 'it was obsCTved that insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact tfaat unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one ofthe 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 th§ post which would faave been available, but for the provision enablin^ appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the geaeral 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 provision." It is well settled 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 ofthe deceased employee from destitiition. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also weH setded tfaat 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 ofincome. kIS The Supreme Court, in State fff J & K and others vs, Mis^, after having considered all the aspects of compassionate appointment, observed as under:- "11. .......... it is that such an appointment is an exceptiou to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Govemment or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply 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 pubUc office. This general rule should not be departed from exeept where compelling circumstances demand, such as,death ofthe sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family sufiering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite ofthe death ofthe breadwianer, the I.T: ;J(^. 1.. 7. % 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 ofthe interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 ofthe Constitution." Applying the settled principle of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases (supra), it is well settled that Ihe compassionate appointment, which is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, is to mitigate the hardships caused due to untimely death ofthe employee. Tn the present case, the father of the petitioner died on 17.04.1993, the petitioner has sustained himself and other family members financially from other sources for about 9 years. The object of compassionate appointment does not sun/ive at this stoge. As a result, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' (2005) 7 SCC 206 2 (2006) 5 SCC 766 Amit >>:. ^-: ^