COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. ,2878 of2004 Sabbir Khaii, aged 32 years, sori ofiate Shri A)7>rub Kliaii, resident of Baherapara,. Dharmjaigarh, Tehsil ' Dharmjaigarh, District Raigarh. (ClAattisgarh) VERSUS : (1) State of Chhattisgarh, trirough the Secretary, departmeiit ofForest Raipur. (2) Consen7ator of Forest Bilaspur Circie, Bilaspur (Cliliattisgarh) (3) Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh Forest Division, Raigarh (Cliliattisgarh) (4) District Collector, Raigarh, district Raigarh (Cliliattisgarh) (5) Divisional Forest Officer, Dharmjaigarh Forest Division, Dhamijaigarh (ClAattisgarh) WRTT PETmON I.JNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA. Besicli: Jiistice Satish K, Agmhotsi. Present: Shri Sonm.ath Veniia, Advocate for the petition.er. Slm Satish G-upta, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State / respoiideiits. ORDER (Passed on 10tn day ofMay, 2007) 1. The father ofthepetitioner, Late Shii Ayiib Khan, while working as Forest Guard at Raigarh Forest DivisioiL died cn 10.03.1987, in hamess. The respondent no. 3, directed the elder brofher ofthe petitioner namely Sbri Akbar Khan for sendmg complete application for compassionate appomtment. The respondent no. 3 sent a on 23.6.1999 to the respondent no. 4 fbr appoiB.ti.ng the petitioner on compassionate basis. There were sever.al letcers •exchanged be.tween the petitioner aiid the respondent State officers. LTltimately, the case ofthe petitioner was rejected before October 2000, by the then State of Madhya Pradesh, After creation of the State of Clihattisgarh w.e.f. 01.11.2000, the petitioner made several representations \vhich, according to the petitioners have not been considered. 2, Be that as it may.. It is well settled tfaat the appomtment 011 compassionate ground is not a method of recmitment but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the fam.iiy m distress for relieving the dependent familv members ofthe deceased emplovee for destitution. In other words, the ^as. ¥•^ object of compassionate appointment is xiot to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden fmancial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also weil settled that mere death ofthe employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustam themselves financially from other sources ofmcome. 3. In Haryana State Electricity Board aiid another Vs. HaMm Singh {91997) 8 SCC §5} the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of aiiy compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account ofthe untimely demise ofits sole eaming member." 4. The Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmd Mir {(2006) 5 SCC 766), in para 11 has held as under: "11..,.. .Jt is that such an appoisitment is an exception to the geiieral rule. Nomially, aii emplo^iient isi the Goveiimieiit or other public sectors should be open to all eligibie casididates who can come fon¥ardto apply and complete with each other. It is m consonance with Ailicle 14 of the Coiistitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appomtmesit shouid not be departed from except where compeiliiig circumstances demand, such as, death of the soie bread wimier- the faniily sur^ived and fhe faiiiily sufiermg because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite ofthe death oftlie breadwimiei', the famiiy sui-vived and substaiitial period is oven there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the noniial roie of appoiiitmesit asid to show favour to one at the cost of the iiiterests of several others ignormg the . mandate of Article 14 of fhe Coiistitutiosi." 5. Appiying the well ssttled principles oflaw as emmciated by the Supreme Court m the cas^(supra), admittedly, the father ofthe petitioner died on 10.03.1987 and the petitioner has approached this court after a period of 17 years. The petitioner and his family members have sustained themselves financially from other sources ofincome. 6. As a result aiid in view of hereinabove mentioned reasons- this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge Amit [q