c^ ^® ,1^:.,-.^ s— IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH At BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6^^ / 2008 PETITIONER <p- . ^s^- Versus RESPONDENTS Hemant Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri. Nathu Ram Yadav Aged about 31 Years, Unemployed, Resident at: Ward No. 15, Kailash Nagar, Dhamdha Naka., DURG-491001 (CG). StateofChhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Town Administration & Development, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, RAIPUR-491002(CG) The Director, Directorate, Town Administration, Chhattisgarh, RAIPUR The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation; DURG-491001 (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. Atfe^. .^.^ll AF^ ^^i^ ^ <.z& ^^:.la & ,t- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6342 OF 2008 PETITIONER HemantKumarYadav RESPONDENTS - Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petitionunder Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 30th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30-3-1993 (Annexure - P/2) whereby the father of the petitioner namely; Nathu Ram Yadav was terminated from the service on account of remaining absent from the duties unauthorisedly and further orders dated 2-3-2002 (Annexure - P/4) and 12-5-2006 (Annexure - P/8) whereby the applications of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate basis were rejected by the respondent No.3. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner working as Driver in the respondent Corporation, absconded from the house on account of being unsound mind. On the basis of civil suit being No.14-A/2001 made by the mother of the petitioner, the learned Couri: of Civil Judge declared the father of the petitioner as dead (civil death) by judgment dated 4-10-2001 (Annexure - P/3). After passing of the judgment by the learned Court below, the respondent Corporation released the retiral dues. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment, which was rejected vide letter dated 12-5-2006 on the ,,^ss^%, lrl..- ^,-^ •:^ ,^^,^ .^fU^ 5 6. ground that the father of the petitioner was terminated from the service by order dated 30-3-1993. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner preferred a petition before this Court being W.P. No.3237 of 2006, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27-2-2008 (Annexure - P/9). Now by this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of termination order dated 30-3-1993 (Annexure - P/2) passed in respect of his father as well as the communication dated 12-5-2006 (Annexure - P/8) whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. Thus, this petition. Shri Rao, learned counsel appearing fpr the petitioner, submits that the father of the petitioner was terminated from service iv.e.f. 30-3-1993. Thus, this petition challenging termination of the father of the petitioner as well as consideration of his application for grant of compassionate appointment within the stipulated period. The termination of the father of the petitioner was bad in law, as without any enquiry, the father of the petitioner has been terminated from service. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that since the service of the father of the petitioner has been terminated, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Even the petitioner has not made the application for grant of compassionate appointment within the stipulated period. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. ^- ^ 7. The father of the petitioner namely; Nathu Ram Yadav, who was terminated from the service on account of remaining absent unauthorisedly with effect from the date of his absence 2-7-1992 by order dated 30-3-1993. It appears that no steps were taken to challenge the order of termination of Nathu Ram Yadav. Smt. Bhagwati, wife of Nathu Ram moved the competent Civil Court by filing civil suit No.14-A/2001, which was decreed on 4-10-2001 declaring Nathu Ram, S/o Jagannath as dead (civil death), Thereafter, the respondent No.3 modified the order of termination by order dated 4-6-2003 (Annexure - P/5) and treated the termination of Nathu Ram as retirement on the basis of declaration of the Civil Court on 4-10-2001. Accordingly, pension was determined and family pension was granted to Bhagwati, W/o Nathu Ram. Smt. Bhagwati accepted the family pension without any demur. Thus, the question of termination of service of Nathu Ram father of the petitioner does not arise at this stage, as on account of declaration of death of Nathu Ram, the termination order was treated as retirement i^/.e.f. 4-6-2003. 8. The petitioner is further seeking a direction to grant compassionate appointment. In this regard, the law is well settled that compassionate appointment can be granted only to the dependants of those employees who die in harness. In the instant case, the father of the petitioner has not died in harness, but he remained absent from service unauthorisedly and thereafter he was declared as dead (civil death) by the Civil Couri: and accordingly termination was treated as retirement and all the pensionary benefits were granted to the mother of the petitioner. ^. ^ Gowri 9. Even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law that 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 financial crisis and is not to provide employment. 10. Applying well settled principle of law to the facfs of the case, the family members of the deceased employee had survived for more than 15 years, the reasons for compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial problem of the deceased emptoyee, but not to provide employment on compassionate basis de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. There is no merit in this petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition fails is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. _ -———- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge