^ AF-^ f^>- <9-^0? HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitioa No. 22 pir2(W6 Petitioner Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Smt Savita Yadav, Wd/of Late Nidhl Ram Yadav, aged about 40 yrs, R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bflaspiir, Distt. Bi]aspiu-(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, tfarough Secretaiy, Public Work Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mautralay, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Public Work Department, Raipur, CUhattisgarii. Superinteiulu^ Engmeer, PubUc Work Department, Bflaspur Board, Bilaspur. Executivc Engiaeer, PutoUc Work Departinent, BUaspur, Bilaspur. WRIT PBTITOB OTTOBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'nOM OF INDIA Sin^e Bench: HonTile Mr. Satish K. A®nU»ot»t,J. Shri S. N. Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jaiu, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. ORDBR(o»an (Passed on tliis 8th day ofSeptember, 2009) 1. Thc petitioaer, by this petition, seeks a dnection to the respondents to grant her coiap^sionate appointment, as hcr busband, while working on daUy wages iu Public Works Department, dicd oa 16.7.2004. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutsheB, are that the husband of the petiticaer late NidM Ram Yadav, whOe worku^ as Copyist, on daity wages, in the of&cc of thc PubUc Works Departmeat, Bilaspur Division, died in haraess on 16.7.2004. The petitfoner, beiag widow of Shri Nidhi Ram Yadav, made aa appUcation on 2.8.2004 (Aanexure P/1) for grant ofcoinpassionate appoiatment 3. Shri S. N. Nande, teamed coimsel appcaring for thc petittoncr submits that the husband of fhe petitioner was working on daity wages since 23.8.1986. As per the poUcy of fhe Goivenunent the uo einployees appoiated prior to 31.12.1988 were to be regularized in service. The process of regularization of the husband of fhe petitioner was under consideration. In fhe ineautime, the husbaad of fhe petitioner died on 16.7.2004. Looldng to the long serrice period of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner should Iiavc been given appoiatinent on compassionate basis. 4. Per contra, Ms Sunita Jain, leamed Paael Lawyer submits that as per fhe notification dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure R/1) thc petitioner is not entitled to appoiatment on compassionate basis as her husbaad was working on daily wages, The petitioner has no legal right to be appoiated on conipassionate b^te. 5. Haviag heard learned counscl appearmg for the parties aad having perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is clear fhat fhe appointiaeut of the husband of the petitioner was not fhrough any proper selectton process or ia accordauce wifh the constitutional scheme of employinent. It has been heML that fhe appoiatnient on conipE^sionate basis is not a proper appoiatmeiit but it is a back door entiy. The law on coiapassionate appoiatment is weU setfted. It is weU setUed principle of law fhat aay circular or direction providmg for appointanent of a person wlthout selectiou process is violative ofArticles 14 and 16 offhe Constitution oflndia. 6. The coinpassioiiate appoiutment is granted only iu the event, if aa employee dies m. hamess aad on accoimt of suddcn death, the dependent fanuly has become peuurious on sudden denuse of fhe bread earuer offhe fanrity. The coiapasskinate appointment itself te a backdoor entry. It is a departure fmm. the geueral rule of eiaployment, as provided under the provisions of Artick 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassioiiate basis is not in. accordauce with the constitutional scheiae of eiaploynient but in order to sub-serve the above stated purpose. (See State ofJSaK <md othersvs. Sc^adAhmeciWSr1) 7. It is weU setfled tfaat the appointaient on conipassioiiate ground is not a mefhod of recruitment, but, is a faciUty to providc for immediate rehabilitation of the fanuly iu distress fi)r reBeving fhe dependent family meiubers of tiie deceased eiuployee fironi destitution. -In ofher werds, the object of compassionate 1 (2006) 5 SCC 766 Ml appointment is to eaable peaurious famity to tide over tbe sudden fiiiancial crisM and is not to provide einployineat In the preseut case, the husband of the petitioner was working on daily wages, not appoiated ia accordance with fhe constitutioiial scheine of employiueiit, thus thc petitioner bas no legal right to be appointed on conipassionate basis. 8. It is trite law that the appoiatment on coinpassionate basis to flie dependent of tfae deceased einployee caa be granted only in accordance with the poUcy of fhe Ctovenuaent. If there is no policy to graat conipassionate appoiatment to the dependeat of the deceased euiployee, no writ caa be issued against fhe Ctovenunent to grant auy appointment, including the coinpassionate appomtmen.t (See Life Insiu-ance Corporation of India v. Aslia Ramchhaadra Ambekar (Mrs) aud another2, aud Commlssioner ofPubUc Instructions and otihers ws. K.R.Vishwanath3) 9. In the present case there is no polfcy c£fhc Govemment to grant coiapassionate apponitmeut to fhe dcpendeuts of the deceased eiaployee, who were eiaployed on daily wages as is evident fiTom the notification dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure R/ 1). 10. In view ofthe foregoiag fhere is no merit in this case. The petition is accordingly disinissed. — Sd/- S.K. Agnihotn Judge Thakur ! 2 (1994)28cc 718 3 (2005) 7 SCC 206