^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR Writ ADpeal No.371 of 201 O APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: Shivendra Gin Goswami, S/o late Kaiiash Giri Goswami, aged about 25 years, R/o Ward No.23, Ayodhya Nagar, iVlahasamund, TahsiS and District Mahasamund (CG) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh. Through the Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. 3. 4. Chief Conservator of (Admsnistrative/Non-Gazette), Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) Forest Conservator of Forest, Clrcle Rajpur; District Raipur (CG) Dlvisionai Forest Offlcer, General Forest Division, Mahasamund (CG) Present: Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.S. Kachhav»'aha,Deputy Advocate Generai for ths State/respondents. DJJvision Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhjrendra Mjshra & Hon'ble Shri R,N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGIVIENT (Deliveredon 21-1-2011) The foilowing judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1 Shri Kailash Giri Goswami, father of the appellant, died in harness while working as Forest Guard in the Forest Department on 20-6-2008 teaving widows Smt. Sakun Goswami and Smt. Chandrakala Goswami. The appellant is the son of the empjoyee through Smt. Sakun Goswami (ftrst widow). Smt. Chandrakala Goswami (second widow) is already working on the post of accountant in the Forest Department. 2 The appellanfs petition for compassionate appointment on the death of his father Shrl KalSash Gir! was rejected by the Chief Consewator of Forest on 20th March, 2009 (Annexure-P/1). ^ 3 Leamed Single Judge has further dismissed his writ pet'rtion against the order of Annexure-P/1 with observations that pnnciple of law on compassionate appointment is well settled. It is to be granted only in the event of employee dying in harness and on account of sudden death, the dependent family has become penurious on sudden demise of the bread earner of the femily» The appointment on compassionate basis is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment but in order to sub-serve the above stated purpose, this provision has been made under the relevant rules» The object of compassjonate appointment js to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisJs and js not to provide employment Mere death of the empioyee does not entJtfe his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves fsnanclally from other sources of income* The compassionate appointment can be granted only jn accordance with the poitey ofthe Government. Ifthere is no poltey to grant compassjonate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee, no writ can be issued against the Government to grant any appolntment, jncluding the compassionate appojntment: 4 Further referring to the policy of the State Government dated 10-6-2003, it has been observed that If a member of the deceased employee is already in service, no compassionate appointment can be granted to the other member. Further referrlng to the policy ofthe Government dated 21-9-2007, it has been observed that ifyearly income of the dependents of the deceased family is more than Rs.60,000/-, then other member of the family is not entitled for compassionate appointment, 5 Considering that second widow Smt. Chandrakala Goswami, who is drawing 50% penslon of the deceased, is in Government employee and there is no dispute that she is earning more than Rs.60,000/- per annum, the writ petition has been dismissed, 6 Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, learnect counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submltted that Smt. Chandrakala Goswami is residing separately with her children and she is not maintaining the first wife of the deceased and her two children. The family of Smt. Sakun Goswam'i was fully dependent on earning of the deceased and after his death, they are facing Immense hardship in maintaining themselves, In these circumstances, learned Single Judge was not justified Sn denying compassionate appointment to the appeliant on the ground that second widow of the deceased was in Government employment and she was drawing more than Rs.60,000/- per annum as salary, ;< ^ 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is the settted position of law that compassionate appointment can be granted only in accordance wlth the policy, if any, framed by the State Govemment jn this regard in the event of sudden death of a ©overnmentemployee in harness and considering the policy of the State Government in this regard which clearly stipulates that where any of the dependents of the deceased is in Govemment employment and yeariy income is more than Rs.60,000/-, in such cases, compassionate appointment cannot be granted, 9 Since there is no dispute that Smt. Chandrakala Goswami, second wjdow of the deceased, is accountant in the Forest Department and she is also drawlng 50% of the pension on account of death of her husband, we are of the opinion that leamed Single Judge was wholly justifled $n dismisslng the writ petition. 10 In the result, we do not find any substance jn the present appeal, the same deserves to be and is aocordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve