^^ PETITIQNER HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.06 OF 2008 Naveen Singh Kshatriya, S/o Late Shri Bahadur Singh Kshatriya, aged about 18 years, R/o Village Jangi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). RESPQNDENTS 2. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Director, Town and Country Planning, Raipur (CG). Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Korba (CG). (Writ petitionunderArticte 226 ofthe ConsBtution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Preserrt: Shri Ashok Dubey, counset for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel LawyerfprState. ORALORDER (Passed on this 20tt'dayofAugust, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him appoinftnenton compassiorwte ground. 2) The indisputable facte, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the fattier of the pet'itioner namely, Late Shri Bahadur Singh Kshafriya vwrking as Assistant Drafteman in the ofRce of Deputy Director, Town and Country Planmng, Korba, died on 1-3-2002, which is evident from Annexure-P/1, in ham^s. Firstly, the petittoner made an application before the respondent authorities on 20-5-2CX)2 (Annexure-P/2) when he was minor. The same could not be conshlered by the respondent authoriUes, as the petitioner was minor. The petitioner after having attained tteage of majority made one more application for grant crf compassionate appointment aftera period ofSyears, which has also been rejected by ttie respondents by order dated22-8-2007 (Annexure-P/^. The polteyofthe State Government dated 1-5-2002 providesthat if a dependant member is ncrt major, he can make an application within a period of Syears. 3) Learned counset appearing for the petitioner relies on a cireular dated 15-12-2000, whereunder the date of the minimum period pr^cribed was not extended, but it vras provided that the application may be considered forthe period of3yeare,jfthe vacancy is not available. The .,fr<tt<l;^.. J', .,, _• . : - . said 3 years period bas exterided to 5 years. •s -c-i" -Z-' J^ 4) Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law 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 dependentfamily members ofthe deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entiUe his family to ctaim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financiatly from other sources of income. 5) tn the matter of Haryana State Etectricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh where the application was madeon attaining the age of majority of adependant member the Supreme Court observed as under: °12....1f Ihe family members of the deceased emptoyee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legat heire cannot put Torward a claim asthough itis a lineof succession byvirtue of a right of inheritance. Theobject of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succor to ttie family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependants on account of the untim^y demise <rf Hs sole eaming member." 6) The Supreme Court in the mattef of State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin2, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under: "11. In Smt. Sushma Gosam snd Ors. v. Uniai of /ndte andOrs. {1989 (4) SCC 468J itwas observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread- eamer in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediatety to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, untess the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state ttiat as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed wittiout any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Plwohwati (Smt) v. Union of India & Ors. {1991 3upp(2) SCC689} and UivonoflM»a& Ois. v. Bhagwan Singh {1995 (6) SCC 476}. In Director of Education (Secondsuy) • & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. {1998 (5) SCC 192}, it was observed that in matter of compassionate 1 (1^7) 8SCC 85 MR 2003 SCW 4339 /- -1>- ^^ apppintment there Cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanrtarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source bf livelihood is provided the family would not beable to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependante of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provisipn for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exeeption to the general provisions does not unduty interfere wHh the right <rf those other personswho are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made 6n compassionate grounds ofthedependantofthedeceased employee.As itis in Bie nature of exception tp the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exceptionand thereby nuttiiy tfle main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the mainprovision." 7) In the matter of State of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after having considered all Uie aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 1 1 observed as under;- "11......it is that such an appoinhnent is an exception to the general rule. Normally.an employment in the Govemment or other public sectors shoutd be ppen toall eligibte candklates who can come forward to apply and compete wiUi each other. It is in consonance with Artlcle 14 of the Constitution. On the basis <rf competitive merits,an appointmentshould be made to public ofRce. This general rule should not be departed from except wherecompelting circumstances demand, such asdeath ofthe sote breadwinner arid likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spit®ofttie death ofthe breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at ttie cost of the interests of several othere ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." 8) Applying the vrell setUed principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the petitioner has made an applicalBon after a period of 5 years from the dealh of tt»e deceased employee, the State policy of compassionate appointment provides for making an applteation in csse of major within a period of 6 months and 3 years when no major dependant person is available. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. There is no meritin this petition. The petition is accordinglydismissed. isto order astocosts. '- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2006)5SCCre6 s re-j'r •:^t^" •"SS-W^"