IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. WRIT PETITmN No. 4663 2004 PETITION ER /Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o- Sher‘ Singh Yadav aged about 21 years, b¢gfr R/o— Baikunthpur, Ram mandir Gali, Ward no. 12, Raigarh, Tehsil & ' District Raigarh (C.G.) 3a VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The Sate Of Chhattisgarh CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Principai Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE HKGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4663 of 2094 PETITIONER : Krishna Kumar Yadav. V VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRET PEI—EIQELLEDER ARTICLE 226L2_27n OF THECONSTITQILQN OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotriLJ. Present: Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate for the petitioner. ‘ Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the Smte/respondents. ORDER §0RAL1 (Passed on 015 day of April, 2010) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the death of his gand father on 28.09.2000, while serving as peon in Tahsil Office, Raigarh The petitioner thither challenges the order dated 13. 10.2004 (Annexure 13/12) whereby the application of .the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the gound that since the grand fathe/r ofthe petitioner died before 1.11.2000, and thither, in the policy dated 10.06.2003, there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment to the gand children of the deceased employee. Shri Khare. learned "counsel appearing for the petitioner snbmits that since the petitioner was Iooking atter his grand father, though the father and mother of the petitioner both are happy and alive, therefore, the petitioner became dependent on his gand father and the petitioner ought to have been gamed compassionate appointment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the compassionate appointment is granted to the dependent "\ _ members ofthe family when on death ofthe employee in harness, the I \\¥ p g\\ \ \, . 2 family ofthe deceased becomes penurious. It is a case Where firstly the petitioner was not the dependent member of deceased employee as normally, the children or the wife are dependents ofthe deceased, not the grand children. It is further not a case where the petitioner has leit the house of his parents and he was living with his gand father separately. Further, there is no policy to consider the case of grand children for appointment on compassionate basis. 4. The above contention of the learned counsel for the State/respondents merits acceptance as appointment on compassionate basis not a method to g‘ant a regular employment as such employment is dehors the constitutional scheme and is a backdoor entry. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish his dependency on his grand father. 5. Even otherwise, the deceased employee died on 28.09.2000 and ‘ thereafter, the petitioner has sustained himselffor about 10 years. Thus, the very object of the compassionate appointment does not survive at this stage. Appointment on compassionate gound is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis which arose on account ofdeath ofthe sole bread earner. (See: Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh}, State . 0 .McmiPur v. Md. Rajaodinz, and State ofJ & K and omen v samdahmedMz-r’ ). 6. In View ofthe foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. No order asto costs. i t \I Sd/— Satish K. Amhom'}? Judge 1(1997) 8 scc s5 2 AIR 2003 sow 4339 3 2006 (5) scc 766