'',"i'illls"; i'Msa •sas'a ^fcNU f-loo! IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTTS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETETEON NO.c&^^ /2006 [S.B .] PETITtONER RESPONDENTS y?--" ^0^ ^^)- ^ /' ^ CHANDRA KUMAR BIRKO S/o late Darashr'am Birko, aged about 23 years, R/o (Sram Madanpur, Korba, Tehsil and District- Korba [C.6.] VERSUS ^ 1] STATE OF CHHATTESeARH Through- Secr'etary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, &.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.6.]. Y2] DIRECTOR, Tribal Welfare Department Raipur [C.6.] 3] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Tribal Welfare Department, Korba [C.6.] ,/4] BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, Tribal Welfare bepartment, Korba [C.S.] WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTETUTEON OF INblA d ^.-^^iri ^.^^•^--••' ...••"' .^y^^'" ^y>^' ^&^^S:^^^?S^^^^SSW^^^^^^: ^^^SS^S^^S^^SffS^^^S^SS^^^^^^^^^^SSS<^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^S^^^S^^^^^8S1^SS§:S^i^^&^fS ^^s^^l^;%i^^^S®^;"^^£^^^^u^^i%!^^^^^N^^S§K^^^^^^^?^i'N^^^ W.^:^;;..5- :::*%'"'!' Kon'bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Pstitioner i^n.rjssa^l "<=frfi I;^?.^»fc s Chandra Kumar Birko Vereus State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs. Shri Gurudeo Sharan, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Satish Guota. Deouw G.A. forthe State/ resoondents. O R 1-Passed on 10"' Day ofJanuary', 2007) The petitionsr being one of the lega! hsirs of iats Darashram Birko who died while workinfl as Ugoer Division Teacher ('Superintendent ) on 06-07-1984 in harness. The deceassd, at that tlms, was posted as Superintendent, Adiwssi Baiak Ashram, Village ivladanpur, Biock ane Dlstrict Korba. The mother of the petitioner bv letter dated 10-00-1994 (Annexure-P/2) msde an appllcstion to the BSock Deveiopment Officer, Biock ~ Korba stating that her sii three children were rninor at thai point of time and appropriate application would be made after the minor children attained the majority. (2) Learned counsel for ths petmoner submits that the petitioner has thereafter made an appilcation for appointment cn compassionate basis. On perusa! of the writ petition and the docurnents appended thereto, It is nowhere found that any appiication was made. The petitioner has not furthsr staSed as to what was ths dats of birth of the petitioner and when he has attained majority. Learned counsei confines his submission that order as passed by this Court on 17-07-2006 in W.P. No.3487 of 2006 be ^I^^^B^^^^^ w m. passed in this case also. The petition lacks material facts which are necessary for adjudteation to consider this petition for grant of compassionate appointment. (3) 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 of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of cpmpassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financia! crisis and is not to provide employment. It is aiso well settled that mere death of the emptoyee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the famiiy members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. (4) In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh in para 12 the Supreme Court observed as under: " It appears that the High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependant of the deceased employee. tf the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his iegal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a iine of succession by viri:ue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the deoendants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member." (5) The Supreme Court in the case of State of J &K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmd Mir2 in para 11 has he!d as under: "............ it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normatly, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to ali eligible canditfates 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 public office. 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 normai rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate ofArticle 14 ofths Constitution. " (6) ln the case in hand, the father ofthe petitioner died on 06.07.1994. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased empioyee managed their conditions for about 12 years, as such it cannot be held that compassionate appointment be granted to rehabilitate the family members of the deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The grant of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and this is also not in consonance wit'n Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The grant of appointment on compassionate basis cfe hors recruitment rutes encourages backdoor entry into service. (7) For the reasons stated above and the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. (1997) 8 SCC 85 2. (2006) 5 SCC 7S6