HIGH COimT OFJUDICATURE CHHATnSGARHiBILASPVR SiagleBeach: Hon'ble Stet Satish K. AgBiItotei, J. Writ Petttioa Mo. 6093sf2<X® Petitioner Smt. Shanti Bai, W/o Late BBahaspati. 1'anik, Agcd about42 ycars, K/o ViUage Maavari, Tetisil - Manendr^;arh, District- Koiea (C.G.V Versus Respoadents 1. Union ofIndia,Thiough ; Secretaiy, Miaistty ofMiniag & Industrics, ncw DeBii.. Sougli Eastem Coal Fields Limited, Tltfough ; Gcncral Managcr, Sccpat Koad, Bfitespm- {C,G.) Deputy General Maiu^er, Sou.fti Eastem Coal t'lelds Ltd., Sub Kegion Kotma, Goviada Collieiy, Kouna, iDistt:- Kolea $C,G.) Seuior Ofiftcer, South Eastem Coal Fields Ltd. Sub Kcgion Kotma, Ooviada Coiliciy, Kotcaa, Distt;- Korea (C.G.} 2. 3. 4. Shri Y. C. Sharma, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Rajaish Sfarivastava, Advocate oa the authority of Shii Shailendra Dubey, Standing Counsel for fhe Union of India/Respondent No.l, Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondeuts No, 2 to 4. ORDER (Passed oc this 28th day of March, 2007) 1. Accordiag to tearaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner, fhe husband of fhe petitioner nsaneSy Sttri Brahaspati Panik, was workm.g as Loader in the West Colliiy, Kotma wiffa the respondents ^ No."'2 to 4, when he died on 14.6.1986 in faamess. 2. The petitioner, bemg depeadaiit-legal heir of the dece^sed, niade various applications for apppiateierit on coiapassioiiate. Hei- Isst applicatiou is dated 26.3.2002 (AnaexyreP/10). Videletterdated 2 21.9.2005 (Annexure P/l) it was uitimated to the petitioner ffaat ihe is uot entitled to get compassionate appouitment. Esi-i.i,; 3. Learued counsel appearing for fhe petitioner aubmits that the petitioner is entitled to appointiuent on conipassionate basis, 4. The petitioner has filed this petition wittt unexplained and inordinate delay, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant coiapassionate apponitnient. Ttie husband of the petitioner died on 14.8.1986 aad the petitioner applied for compassion&te appomtment ou 16.12.1998 (i\nnexure P/5). 5. It is weU settied that fhe appointiaent on coinpasaionate ground is not a method of recruitm.ent, but, is a faciUty to provide for iirunediate rehabiSitation of the fainily in distress for lelieviug fhe dependent family meinbers of the deceased em.ployee froni destitution. In. other woids, the object of conipassionate appointiaent is to enable penurious famfly to tide over the sudden fuiancial crisis and is not to provide employinent. Et is also weU setfled that mere death of the eniployee does not entitle his family to claiin coinpassionate appointmeut if the famity inenibers could sustaia themselves financiaUy from other sources of income. 6. In Haryaaa ©tateBlectricity Soard and anothe? Vs. Hafelni {(1997) 8 SCC 85 } thc Suprcmc Court hcld that "thc wholc object of any coiapassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the faniily to tide over the sudden finaiicial crisis befallen fhe dependenS on account of tiie untimely demise of its sole eanun; meinber." ___-———— 3 7. Thc Supremc Coiut ia ttsc casc ofState ofJfi.K and othes's Vs. Sajad Ahmd SSir {(2006) 5 S.C.C. 766 ), ia para 11 has hcld as ^ T -E-a/f ^s^ ullU.Ci "11............ it is fhat such an appointment is an exceptiou to the general rale. NormaBy, an employment ia fhe Govemment or other pubUc sectors should be open to ail ettgible candidates who can coine forwaixl to apply aad compete witli each other. It is in coiisonauce wifh Article 14 of fhe Constitution. Oa the basis of competitive nierits, an appoiiitinent should be made to public of&ce. Tfais geaeral rule ahould not be departed from except where coiapelling circuiastaiices deniaad, such as, death of the sole bre&divinaer aad Ekelihood ofthe fanuly suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that iu spite of the death of the breadwmner, the famity survived and substential period is over, there is no aecessity to say '"goodbye" to the uonaal rule ofappointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the iaterests of several ofhers ignoring the mandate of Article 14 oftlie Constitutiou." 8. In view of the above settled priaciples of law, fhere is no nierit in this petition. The petition is accordiagly dismissed sumiuarily. ?fo •<0 inder as to •i-Q C03TS.