HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETmON No. 1254 of2004 Smt, Nimiala Bai Yadav widow of Late Chliabiram Yadav, aged about 31 years, Resident of village Pali Post of Ghum, via Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State ofChhattisgarh, Tlirougli - Secretaty Department of Irrigation (Water Resourcement) Mantralaya, Raipur (CMiattisgarh) 2. Tlie Chief Engineer., Hasdev Bango Project, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary, Department ofWaterResourcement, Bhopal. 4. The Union of India, Tlirougli - Secretary, Department of Personal, Public Grievances, New Delhi, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmmON OF INDIA SBLHon'ble Slui Satish K. As'nihoti-i, J. Prese.nt: Shri Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate for the petitioner. SM PaiAaj Shrivastava, Panel La^'yer for the State/respondent No.land2. Shri A.K.Barik, Advocate appearing on behalfofShri S.K.Berivval, Standing Cousisel forthe Usiion oflndia/^espondeiit No. 4- QRALQRDER (Passed on 10th day of Febmaty, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order 22.10.2003 (Amiexiire P/5) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the application for OTant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. The brieffacts, in nutshell, are that the husband ofthe petitioner namely Clihabiram Yadav working as Assistant Grade II in the office of respondent No. 3 died on, 18.08.1996; in haniess. Tne petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment cn 10.10.1996, The said application was forwarded to the Superintendmg Engineer, Mini Mata Bango Nahar Mandal, No. 2, Janjgir, recoimBendmg the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment vide letter dated 02.09.2002 (Aimex-ure P/l). Thereafter, smce no appointment was granted to the petitioner, she prefeiTed a writ petition beiiig No. 2355/2003 (Aimexure P/2) before this Court seeking relief for granting of comp^sionate r^ appomtment. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation raising all grievances and directsd the respondents to consider the same within a pcriod of45 days and pass appropriate order in compliance ofAmiexure P/l. The petitioner filed a representation on 8.9.2003 (.Aimexure P/4) ^liich was rejected vide order dated 22.10.2003 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this petition. Shri Pankaj Slirivastava, leamed counsel appearmg for the State/respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Govemment ofClihattisgarh, by its circular dated 2.2.2006, has directed all the departments to consider cases ofall the eligible dependant-legal heir oftheemployees, who died in hamess between 1.11.1997 to 31.10.2000 for compassionate appointment In the instant case, the husband of the petitioner has died on 18.08.1996 i.e. much prior to 1.1.1997. Hence, the petitioner is not entitledto grant ofcompassionate appointment. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recmitment, but, is a facility to provide for itnmediate rehabilitatiosi ofthe family in distress for relieving tlie dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitiition. 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 deafh of the employee does not esititle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family membei-s could sustain themselves fmancially jfrom other sources ofincome. Tlie Hon'ble Supreme Court in State ofJ&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir^, in para 11 regarding delay m seeking compassioaate appointment held as under: "Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwiimer, the family sui-vived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "good-bye" to the noniial mle ofappointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the maiidate ofAilicle 14 ofthe Constitution." (2006) 5 SCC 766 ..<3«3».^«^&=.^.^^^^^^;.^^.-^,»^^ ^^9?^.. 7. FurthCT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Pziblic Instaictions and others vs. K.R. Vishwanath, while dealing with the question ofthe object ofthe compassionate appointment obsen7ed as under:- "9. As was obssn7ed in State ofHaryana'v. Rani Devi1, it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concemed for appomtment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim camiot be upheld on the touchstone of Ailicles 14 or 16 ofthe Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and pennissible on the basis of sudden crisis occuiTmg in the family ofsuch employee who has sei-ved the State asid dies while iii sei-vice. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame mles, regulations or to issue sucli administrative orders which can stasid the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground camiot be claimed as a matter ofriglit. Die-m-hamess scheme caimot be made applicable to all types of posts in'espective ofthe nature ofsendce rendered by the deceased employee. Iii Rani Devi case it was held that scheme regarding appointmeiit on compassionate ground if exlended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees includmg those ^dio worked as apprentices camiot be justified on constitutional grounds. In LIC oflndia v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambeka^ it was pointed out that Higli Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympatlietic consideratioiis to make appomtments 011 compassiosiate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thei'eof do not cover and conte$?iplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana3 that as a mle in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appomtment 011 compassionate ground is not another source ofrecmitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking mto consideration the fact of the deatli of employee wliile iii sei-vice leaviiig his family without any meaiis of liveliliood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden fmancial crisis. But such appomtments on compassioiiate ground have to be made in accordance with the mles, regiilations or admiiiistrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition ofthe family ofthe deceased/" "10. In Szishma Gosain v. Union oflndia4 it was observed that in all claims ofappointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of •(2005) 7 SCC 206 '^) 1. 8. 4 providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardsliip due to death ofthe bread-eamer in the family. Such appoiiitments should, therefore, be provided inmiediately to redeem the family iii distress. The fact that tlie ward was a minor at the tinie of death ofhis father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otheiwise, to state that as and wheii such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or liiiiit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati v. Union oflndia5 and Union oflndia v. Bhag'wan Sing}^. }siDirector of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra KwnarL^ it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there caimot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely hunianitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that uiiless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make botli ends meet, provisions are made for giving appomtment to one ofthe depeiidants ofthe deceased who may be eligible for appomtment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appomtmetit to seek appointtifent agaiiist the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment bcing made on compassionate grounds of the dependant ofthe deceased employee. As it is m the nature of exception to the general provisions it camiot substitute flie provision to which it is an exception and tiiereby nullify the main provislon by takmg away completely the riglit confen'ed by the main provision." Applying the settled principle of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court m various cases (supra); it is well settled that the compassionate appointment., wliich is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment is to mitigate the hardships caused due to untimely death ofthe employee. In the present case,the father ofthe petitioner died on 18.08.1996, fhe petitioner has sustained herself and other family members fmancially from other sourcos. The object ofcompassionate appointment does not sundve at this stage. For fhe reasons stated heremabove, this petition desen/res to be and is accordmgly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit