\\ \ Sini‘e Ewch ‘ ‘ “ LASPUR (C.G.) 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BI WRIT PETITIONNoéw 3L OF 2004 Chandra Kumar Birko s/o Late Shn' Daras Ram Birko aged about 24 years,occupati011 nil,res1'dent of Village Kalhamar (sndaha) Tehsn Kota,Dismct"Bi1aspur CG.) PETITIONER N Bhawan,Bhopal of Tribal (MP). Education , Develapment,Mantralay,Vallabh ugh the Secretary Department Chhattisgarh,Raipur The Secretary,Generaf (CG). Adminitration DeparimenLGovemment of ,Chhattisgarh, The Director, Rajpur. Tn'bal Education Development,Chhattisgarh, The Assistant Director,Tr1'bal Education Development,K0rba (CG). x The Block Education O$cer, Korba,D1'strict Korba (CG). \ RESPONDENTS CONSTITUTION WRIT PETITION OFINDIA UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF 3- , ‘ “(Yeamzegw '/ CIT/OH . dated%bxzy&nf ...... As stated in the cause title above. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As stated in the cause title above W 2 x\ " gs EIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4932 of2004 PETITIONER : Chandra Kumar Birko. VERSUS , RESPONDENTS : The Union of India & Others. WRIT PETIIION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Shailendra Dubey, for the petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakeei, Advpcate appean'ng on behalf of Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant S.G. for the Union oflndia/respondent No. 1. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 2 , 4 to 7. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 3O day of March, 2010) i. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashjng of circular dated 10.06.2003 (Annexure P/l) and consequently grant of compassionate appointment to him on the basis of being dependent ofLate Daras Ram Bii‘ko, who died in harness on 6.7.1994 while working as Upper Division Teacher (Hostel Superintendent) at Tribal Development Ashram, Madanpur, District Korba. 2. There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner Late Daras Ram Birko died on 6.7.1994 while sewing Government of Madhya Pradesh, as it then was. The State ofChhattisgarh was carved out on 01.11.2000 pursuant to the provisions of M.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. Th petitioner made an application for grant ofcompassionate appointment on creation ofthe State of Chhattisgarh on 26.03.2001 (Annexure 13(4). The petitioner has questioned the legality of the circular dated 10.06.2003 to the effect oftixing ofthe cut off date for Consideration of 1 \\the application, whereby only in cases where the deceased employee .1 \\\ e 1 2 died after 01.11.2000, the application for grant of compassionate appointment was to be considered, on the ground that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. 3. Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 2: 4 to 7 submits that the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid circular is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, has no basis as the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 01.11.2000. Accordingly, the cut off date of 01.11.2000 was fixed. The employees, who died aiter 01.11.2000, their dependents would be considered for grant of compassionate appointment, as prior to that, the state of Chhattisgarh was not in existence at all. The aforesaid circular was thereaiter amended by subsequent circular dated 2M February, 2006, whereby the cut off date was made retrospective 00m 01. 1 1.1997 with a condition that the dependents of the deceased employee, who died in service should make application within a period of six months. The said circular was considered by this Court in several cases with approval. 4. The contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid circular is discriminatory, is without any basis as no gounds have been raised in support of his contention. It appears to be reasonable, having nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. the date of creation ofthe State of Chhattisgarh, though subsequently the policy makers have further decided to entertain the application of the dependents of the employees, who died after 01.11.1997. Thus, the contention of the i petitioner deserves to be rej ected. 5. With regard to the compassionate appointment, the petitioner has made an application alter a period of about seven years of the death of his father. Even otherwise, the State of Chhattisgarh could not have entertained the application in case the employee, who died in the year \ /. \ x w 3 1994 and thereatkr, the dependent kept quite. H‘ the dependent ofthe deceased employee could survive for six years, the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is defeated. It is well settled that only those cases may be considered for grant of appointment on compassionate basis where an employee dies in harness as the sole purpose ofganting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief and succor to the penurious family in distress. Appointment on compassionate gound is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility enable penurious family to tide over the sudden tinancial crisis and is not to provide employment. (See : Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singhl, Stare ofMamp'ur v. Md. Rajaodmz, and State ofJ & K and others v. SajadAhmed Mir} ). 6. In View ofthe foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ~l Judge s.3%.