^.k"^^ ....-}6§^§>-"""' --' ,.. ^ ••"^^N.'i-'-' ^ yx& S^'fTSE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WKIT PETITION FS1 N0. ^-S 8 /2007 PETITIONER ^-dadunath Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o vaiage- Sarbhoka, P.S. & Tah. - Manendragarh, District Korea [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ¥• ^" .^^ &• '%^ A^' ^ ILUnion oflndia, Through- Secretary, Mines and Minerals Ministry, New Delhi. 2LSouth Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Through- Chief Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur [C.G.]. Sj^Personnel Manager [Shram Shakti] Bilaspur [C.G.]. 4] Sub Chief Personnel Manager, ^ Chirimiri Area, P.0. W^est Chirimiri colUery of S.E.C.L., District Korea [C.G.]. ,5] Personnel Manager, West Chirimiri colliery ofS.E.C.L. P.0. West Chirimiri, District Korea [C.G.]. 6]/Sub Area Manager, West Chiriaairi colliery S.E.C.L. Chirimiri Area, District Korea [C.G.]. / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22^ OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Af^- VERSUS Jadunath Singh. Union of india & others. Shri J.K. Shashtri counsel for the petitioner Shri Abhishek Sinha counsel for the r< ?RIT_PETITIQ.ISLUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE 1 •s. With the consent of ihe counse! for the parties, the matier is heard finaily. 2. By vi/ay of this petition the petitioner is seekjng compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father late Shri Ram Singh who died on 23.6.2002 while worklng as Timber Mechanic in a coiliery under the Coai India Ltd. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.1.2004 the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment before respondent No.6 but his appiication was rejected on 21.6.2006 vide (Annexure P-2) on the ground fhat he was not dependant on his father during his life tlme and therefore he cannot be given compassionate appointment. He submits that the petitioner's family ' is facing financiaj hardship and therefore he is entitied for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the fact that the petltioner is the son of the deceased empioyee is not disputed because he was given gratuity and once the identity ofthe peiitioner is not disputed, he ought to have been given compassionate appointment. / /• 4. On the other hand counse! for the respondents submits that as per the policy of the respondents 2 to 6 petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment for the reason that he was never shown by the deceased to be dependent on him, in the service record. He submits that dependants of the deceased employee have already been paid a sum of Rs. 4,90,000 as CMPF, Rs. 1,61,539 as gratuity, Rs. 30,000 as ICS. This apart, an amount of Rs. 1,012 per month is being paid as family pension and thus according to the counsel for the respondents the family of the deceased employee is not having any financial crunch and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for compgssionate appoinfment. He submits that the petitioner died on 23.6.2002 but the appiication for compassionate appointment was made on 13.1.2004 which showre that the family of the deceased empioyee is not having any financial constraint. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in fhe matter of Santosh Kumar Dubev v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (20031 8 SCC 481 in which it has been held by the Supreme Court that the very concept of glvins 8 compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficuitles thaS are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earnlng member of the farniiy. The benefit is given to the family of the deceased employse to tide over the financlat constraint. The Supreme Court further went on saying that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximaie to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefif is to make financial help availabie to the famiiy to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in' harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government seriice. 5. in this case, it is not in dispute fhat the deceased employee died on 23.6.2002 and the appiication for compassionate a •^•-» -3- appointment was made by the petitioner on 13.1.2004. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was never shown as the dependant on his deceased father. This apart, subsequent to the death of the deceased employee, handsome amount was given by the respondents to the famiiy of the deceased employee on various heads. Whlle comprehensively deaiing with the compassionate appointment, in the matter of M/s Eastern Coai Fields Ltd. v. Anil 2009 A!R SCW 4427, among other ihings if has been heid by the Apex Court that the compassionate empioyment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Thus if ail these things are encompassed within the aforesaid legat terra firms, the petitioner, in no way, can be held entitled to the compassionate appointment. The very purpose of giving compassionate appointment, as per the aforesaid as weil as series of other judiclai pronouncements is to make the bereaved family members to tide over the sudden financial constrasnt occurred due to the untimeiy death of the breadwinner of the family. Unfortunately, position in this case is quite different. Tl Thus, in view of the aforesaid factuai essay, foundation for compassionate appointment is lacking in this case. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed as such. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge