^ ^" ~^ HIQH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: B8LASPUR Writ Petltlon (S) No. 2S69 of 2009 Petitlonsr Santosh Kumar Shrivas, aged about28 years, • son of: Late Teerafti, Prasad Shrivas, R/o viji.—Paii, P.S. Pasan, Tah. Podi-Uproda, Distt. Korba (CG). Versus Respondents 1. • State of G.G.,through theSecretary, Department of Publlc Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, MantraJaya, Ralpur (CG). 2. The Engineer-ln-Chief, Department of PybIJcWorks, Raipur (CG). 3. . The Executive Englneer<Department of Pubile Works, Korba Divislon, Korba, DJsirictK6rba(CG). 4. The Sub DivisionaS Officer, Department of Pubiic Works, Djvisjon No.2. Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bleMr. Satish K. Agnihbtri, J. Present: Ms. Pushpa Dwividi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri.Arvind Dubey, Panei Lawyer for the State, ' --QRALORDEE. (Passed on thls 15tn day ofJune, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. for grant of connpasslonate appointment on humanitarian ground. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshei!, as projected by the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner nameiy; Teerath Prasad Shrivas while working as T-1me Keeper in the office of Sub Divislo.nal Officer, Publjc Works Department, died on 27-6-1986 in harness, which Is evident from Annexure - P/1 L©.the death certlficate, Seavjng behlnd widow, three daughters nameiy; Sadhna, Archana & Sandhya and one son.namely; Santosh Kumar (petitioner herein). 3) Ms. Dwivedi, learned counsei appearing for the petitloner, would submit that af the time of death of father of the petitloner, the petitioner and his sisters were mlnor and the mother of the petitioner was not physicaliy fit for serving the departme.nt, On attajnlng the age of majorlty, %rv 1 ;; c > the petitioner moved an application on 7-7-2006 (Annexure - P/3) for compassionateappointment. 4) Be that as it may, It is well settled that compassionate ground Is not a method of recruitment, byt Is a facJlity to provlde for immediate rehabiiitation of the family in distress for relievlng the dependent family members of the deceased empioyee from destitution. in other words, the object ofcompassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden fmanda! crisis and Is not to provlde empioyment. 5) Pursuant to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 the State of Chhatttegarh came Into exlstence w.e.f. 1-11-2000. There were severai cases pending before the authorities of the State of Chhattisgarh. The State Government, by circular dated 2-2-2006 decided that the appljcations of the depencSant persons of those empioyees, who died after 1-11-1997 shali be considered. The said issue came up before thls Court In WP (S) No.733 of 2008 (Nagendra Ssngh Parihar v- State of CG and others) and th@ sanne was upheJd. 6) Shri Dubey, iearned counsel appearing for the State, would submlt that the circular dated 2-2-2006 provldes for dependant of the deceased employee to make an appllcation for compasslonate appointment within a perjpd of six months from fte date of death of Govemment employee. The State Govemment has taken a decision not to consider those cases wherein the Govemment employee has died before 1-11-1997. The said circular Is approved by this Court. !n the present case, father of the petitioner died on 27-6-1986. Thus, the application fiied by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is even otherwise not maintajnable. 7) I have ^ieard leamed counsel appearing for the partles, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner moved an appiication for grant of compassionate appointment on 7-7-2cx)6 when the circuiar dated 2-2-2006 was in force. The-said circuiar has provided for making an applicatlon within a period of six monthJy oniy in the cases where the empioyees dled after 1-11-1997. Thus, the appiication of the petitioner cannot be considered by the State of Chhattisgarh, as the father of the petitioner died cn 27-6-1986. 'T y in Haryana State Electriclty Board and another vs. HaRim Singh the Supreme Court he!d that the whoie object of any compassionate appointment schenfies is to give succor to the fannily to tide over the sudden financial crisis befalien the dependents on account ofthe untimely demise of Itssole eamlng members. 9) The Supreme Court in State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir2, In para 1 1 has he!d as under: "11.;.... .it is that such an appolntmerit is an exceptlon to the general rute. NormaUy, an employment in the Government or other public sectors shouid be open to ali eiigible candidates who can come forward to appiy and complete:- with. each other. !t is io sonsonance with Articls 14 of the ConstituSion. On the basis of competitive merits, an appolntment shouid not be departed from except where compeillng circumstances demand, s-uch as, death of the sote bread wjnner, the •famliy survived and the famiiy suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the famiiy; survived and substantiai period Is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of apposntment andto show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Artide 14 of the Constitutlon." 10) Applying welE settled principies of law to the facts of the present case and eonsidering the circular dated 2-2-2006 issued by the State Govemment of Chhattisgarh, the petitloner does not deser^e any rellef. There isnomeritin thispetJtlon. 11) In the result, the petjtion is iiable to be and Is accordingiy dismissed at the motion stage itseif. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^A 1 (1997) 8 SCC 85 2 2006 (5) SCC 766