01.. :ali^^l lo-o2-^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION FS1 N0. ^t3^ /2006 PETITIONER /^' .-• ^A^ '/ ^/ ^wy '.•••' •' 'x: .^ >»• ,i ^' RESPONDENTS :- w l^? Smt. Pushplata Giri Goswami widow of late Dashrath Giri Goswami, aged about 35 years, resident of village - Fingeshwar, Post Fingeshwar, P.S. Rajim, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Raipur [C.G.]. VERSUS 1] Union of India, Through - The Secretaiy, Departaient of Personal Training and Public Grievances, Shasta-i Marg, New Delhi. 2] State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department of Energy, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.] 3] State of Madhya-Pradesh, Through The Secretary, Department of Energy, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal [M.P.]. 4] Chhattisgarh State Electricity, Board, Through its Chairman, Headquarter, Raipiir[C.G.] 5] The Superintendent Engineer,^ C.S.E.B. Raipur [C.G.]. 6] The Additional Superintendent, Engineer, C.S.E.B. Mahasamund [C.G.]. // @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IIIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitiou No. 5667 of20(» Petitioner: Smt. Pushplata Giri Goswariu Vcrsus Respoudents: Union ot' India & others Sla^s Bench; HonlBle Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri V. K. Pandey, Advocate for fhe petitioncr. Shri Rajnish Shrivastava, Advocate for fhe Respondent No.l. Miss Deepali Paadey, Panel lawyer for the Respondcnt No.2. ORDER ( 30th October, 2006) The followin^ order ofthe Court M p^sed by SaUsh K. Agnlhotri, J. 1. The husband ofthe petitioncr white workmg as Assistant Luieman at Saraipali, District- Mahasainiind, in the present CUiattisgarh State Electricity Board No.5 died in hamess on 27.10.2000. The petitioner, being wife oflate Shri Dashrath Giri Goswanii moved an applicatfon seeking compassionate appointment to thc rcspondent No.6 which was forwarded to fhe rcspondent No.5 on 20.11.2000 (Aiincxure P/2). 2. Ater creatmn of fhe Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board it has issucd the poUcy of compassionate appointment dated 28.2.2004 whercin it is provided fhat compassionate appointment would not be provided to fhe faiiuly ineiabers of the person who died before 14.11.2000. 3. It appears fhat after cnakmg the appUcation for compassionate apponitinent fhe petitioner <Ud not d.o anyfhiiig ie. no efibrts wcre inade by her and fhe instant petition has been filed on 11. W.'3D06. It te weU sctfled principle fhat a belated petition should uot be entertained if fhe petitioner has faited to explain inorduiate delay. During this period the place, if any, which was vacant, might have bcen fiUed up and several persons niust have setflcd their r^hts. It is weU settled that fhe appointment on coBapassionate ground is not a mefhod of recnutment, but, is a &ciU1y to provide for uaniediate rehabflitation of the fanuty in distress for iclieving fhe dependent family members of the deceased einployee fToni destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to eiiable pcnurious faxnity to tide over the sudden financial crisis aad is not to provide einployiiient. It is also weB settted that inere deafh of the cinployee does not entitlc his fainify to claim compassionate appointment if fhe femity members could suslain theinselves finaaciaUy finom other sources ofincome. 4. In Haryaaa State Electrldty Board aad another Vs. HaUm Stn^h1, an employee died ia hamess teaving behind hfm a nunor son. As per the compassionate appoiutment scheme, three years' lunltation after attaining inajority was prescribed. The minor son made an application beyond the stipulated tinae. The High Court's interpretation of the phrase "three ycara time for mafcing such request in case of nunors' as ""in case of miuors the period ofthree years would be applicabte fiTOin the date he becomes major" was set aside by ttie Supreme Coiut on chaBenge. The Suprerue Court held ffaat if the fainity membera of fhe deceascd einployee cau mstDa^e for 14 yeara after his dcath, onc of his legal heirs cannot put forwaid a claiin as though it is line of succcssion by virtue of a right of inheritaace. Thc vrbole object of any conipassionate appoiatment schemc is to give succor to fhe famity to tide over fhe sudden financial crisis befaUen fhe depcndents on accouut of the untimcly demise ofits sole eaming member. 5. After a period of about 6 years, this petition has been fUed on 11.10.2006. The petitioner has not made out any casc for condonation of such a long delay in not ffling the petition or not moving the coinpetent authorily fbr grant of compassionate appointment 6. This petitfon is devoid of merit. Accordingty fhe petitton is disaussed. _ _ _- Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge { (1997) 8 SCC 851} Tbakur