® HIGH COUSQT OF CHHAT‘TISGARH AT BILA§PtJR Wr—§? Pafi‘iiai‘u (5} Na. 43%G3 of 293$ Rajesh Kujur, S/o. Late Aandheri Kujur, Aged abom‘ 19 years, R/o. Gram Panchaya’r Bandana (Uparvara), P.O. Kat, 3.0. Mainpaf, RS. Sifapur‘, Dis'hr'ic? Surguja (C.G.) Pefi‘i’ioner‘ Versus Respondenfs 1. Sfa‘re of Chhaffisgarh, Through Secre‘rar'y, Chhaffisgaarh 5Tafe Elec’rr‘icifv Board, D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Sfa‘re of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Secremr-y, Chhafisgar’h Sfme Eiec‘rrici'ry Board, Jabalpur' (M.P.) 3. 5mm of Chhm'fisgarh, Through t Join? 5ecrefary, Chhat‘risgarh Sfa’re Eiecw‘icify Board, D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur (C6) Chairman, C6. Sfa‘re Elzcfrici'ry Board, 4. Danganiya, Raipur (CG) Chief Engirleer, (Broadcasfing & Repair), Chhaffisgarh Sfafe Elecfricify Board, Ambikapur (C6) Superinfending Engineer. O/o Engineer- 6. in-Chief, (Chhowisgarh 5mm E1ec+ricify Board) P.O. Kof, Disfr-icf Surgqjo (CG) 7. Execufive Engineer, Chhafiisgarh S‘iai'e Elecfricify Board, P.O. Ko‘i, Dis‘H' SurgLu'a (CG) 8. Divisional Engineer, (Broudcasfing 6i Repair), Chhai‘i'isgarh Sfafe Elecfricify Board, Ambikapur (CG) WRIT PETITON UNDEB ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONsjTTUTION OF INDIA $ingie Bench: Hon'ble Mr. $ai‘ish K‘ Agnihofri, J. 5hri Manoj Baranjpe, Adv-acme for #he peii‘iiomr. ORBEB (hissed on this 11'” Day of Agggsi’, 200$) 1. The pefifioner, by fhis peiifion, seeks fo challenge fhe order dafed 7.3.2008 (Annexure P/6), passed by The responden‘i No.3, whereby 1’he prayer of ’rhe pefi‘l’ioner for gram- of compassiona‘fe appoim‘menf has been rejecied. 2. According +0 learned counse! appearing for The pefi‘rioner‘, fhe fcmaer of Thé pe‘fifioner was working as Line A?1‘endom‘ €r‘ade -II in The Madhya Pradesh Sfafe Elecfrici'ry Board a'r Si‘tapur‘, fieid - PeTla, wha died on 21.1.1993 in harness. The pefi‘l'ioner', being minor of fhof poin’r of fime, offer affaining fhe age of mqiorify made an appiica‘rion (Annexure P/3) for gram of compassiona‘fe appoinfmen? on 25.1.2007. By fhe impugned or-der' da'i-ed 7.3.2008 (Annexur-e P/6) fhe appliccd’ion of fhe pefifioner has been rejecfed. 3. The principle of law on ihe compassionaie appoinimen‘f is we" se'Hled. The compassiona‘re appoinfmenf is granfed oniy in fhe eveni', if an employee dies in harness and on accoun‘r of sudden deafh, The dependeni family has become penurious on sudden demise of fhe bread earner of The family. The compassionai'e appointment ifself is a backdoor enfry. I+ is a depar'rure from The general rule of employment as provided under The provisions of Ariicle 14 and 16 of ‘l‘he Consfi'l'ui‘ion of India. The appoinfmenf on compassionafe basis is noi‘ in accordance wifh The consfifufional scheme of employment buf in order 1'0 sub—serve 'l'he above s‘fafed purpose. This provision has been made under fhe Rules framed by The Sfafe Government 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in fhe case of 6ommissioneiv of Public insfmcfions and ofbers' vs. KR Visimanafirl, while dealing wii-h fhe Iquesi‘ion of fhe objeci' of fhe compassionafe appoinfmenf, observed as under :- '“9. As was observed in 5fafe ofHara/ana v. Rani Dev}, if need nof be poinfed ouf fhaf fhe claim of person concerned for appoinfmenf on compassionafe ground is based on fhe premises fha‘l' he was dependant on the deceased employee. Sfricfly This claim cannof be upheld on fhe Touchstone of Ari‘ioles 14 or 16 of fhe Consfifufion. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible onwihe basis of sudden crisis occurring in fhe family of such employee who has served fhe Sfai'e and dies while in service. Tha'r is why if is necessary for 1'he au‘i'hori‘i'ies ’ro frame rules, regulai’ions or +0 issue such adminisfra'i'ive orders which can stand the tesf of Ar‘l‘icles 14 and 16. Appoin‘rmen‘r on compassionate ground canno’r be claimed as a ma'H-er- of right Die-in— harness scheme cannof be made appiicable 1'0 all fypes of posfs irrespecfive of The nature of service rendered by fhe deceased employee. In Rani Devi cas'é if was held +ha+ scheme regarding oppoinfmenf on compassionofe ground if exfended fo alH'ypes of casual or ad hoc employees including +hose who worked as apprenfices cannof be jusfified on consfifuiional grounds. In LIZ‘ offno’ia v. Asha Ramohhandm Ambekmz if was pointed om tha‘i High Couris and Adminis'ira‘rive Tribunals canno‘r confer benedic‘iion impelled by sympaihefic considerafions 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 Nagpa/v. 3fafe of Hora/mag that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee 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 made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.“ “10. In Sushma 605cm v. Union of India‘i 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 ay mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in MM fhe family. Such appoinfmen'rs should, Therefore, be provided immediafely To redeem 'rhe family in disfress. The focf fha‘r fhe ward was a minor af fhe fime of deafh of his father is no ground, unless The scheme ifself envisage specifically otherwise, ’ro sfa‘re fhaf as and when such minor becomes a mqjor he can be appoim‘ed wifhouf any 1'ime consciousness or limii. The above view was reiferafed in Phoofwafi v. Union of India§ and Union of India v. Bhagmm ‘ Singh‘i. In Direcfar of Educafion (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumwz, it was observed fhai in maffer of compassionate appoinfmenf There canno‘i be insisfence for a parficular post Ou‘i‘ of pureiy humani'i'arian considerafion and having regard to the fact that 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 of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compwsionate 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 the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general 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 of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over fhe sudden financial crisis and is no? 1'0 provide empioymenf. I‘i' is also well seh‘ied fha’r mere deafh of ‘i‘he employee does nof enfi‘rle his family To claim compassionate appoin'l'menf if The family members could susfain ihemselves financially from ofher sources of income. The Supreme Courl, in 5mm of J' (E K and others vs. 5qiad Ahmed Mira affer having considered all fhe aspecfs of compassionate appoinimenf, observed as under :— “11. .......... if is fhaf such an appoin’rmen‘l is an excep’i‘ion To ihe genera! rule. Normally, an employmen‘l in lhe Governmen‘l or ofher public sectors should be open To all eligible candida‘ies who can come forward 1‘0 apply and compe'l'e wifh each ofher. If is in consonance wi‘lh Ar'l-icle 14 of 'ihe Consi'i’ru’rion. On fhe basis of compei'i‘live meriis, an appoin-lmen’r should be made +0 public office. This general rule should nof be depari'ed from excepT where compelling circumsfances demand, such as, dea'lh of lhe sale breadwinner and likelihood of The family suffering because of 'l'he se'l-back. Once if is proved fha'l' in spi‘l'e of the dea‘l'h of fhe breadwinner, fhe family survived and subsianfial period is over, ihere is no necessify fo say “goodbye" fo fhe normal rule of appoinfmenf and fo show favour to one of ‘fhe cosi‘ of The inferesfs of several ofhers ignoring fhe mandai’e of Ar'licle 14 of 'I'he Consfifufion.” The Supreme Courf in The maHer of Nofional Ins‘l’ifufe of Technology and others Vs. Niraj Kumor Singha held as under:- “21. The appoinfmen? on compassionafe ground, fhus, could have been offered only fo a person who was fhe widow of fhe deceased or a dependenf child. Admittedly, the son of the deceased, Ashutosh Kumar was only one year old at the time of his father's death. He could not, thus, have been given any appoini‘ment on compassionate ground. Applying the settled principle of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases (Supra), to the facts of the present case, at this stage, there is no necessity to take recourse to excep‘riona] mefhod of recruifmenf Le. confrar-y 1‘0 fhe normal rule of appoinfmen‘r a‘r ‘rhe cos'l' of infer-es? of several ofher' persons on The fouchs‘rone of Arficles 14 or- 16 of fhe Consfifufion. In view of fhe foregoing, fhis pefifion is devoid of merif and accordingly dismissed. \ sw. \ 7 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (zoos) 7 scé‘zoe’ (2006) 5 scc 766 ( (zoo7)(2) scc 481}