AFS^ ^w HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPIIR WritPetition(S)No.2797of20fi@ PETITTONER : Saiijay Kumar Chetam aged about 22 years S/o late Sekh Ram Chetam, R/o Village Podi (Mohda) P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG). \T,RSUS 1RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Clihattisgarh, Tliroiigh the Secretar^^, Department ofPolice, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG). 2. Senior SuperiAiteiidGiit of Police, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). m7RTT PETmON IJNDER ARTICIE 226 OF THE CONSTmmON OF INDIA) (SB; Hon'ble Mi. SaiMi K. Agiiihotri, J.) Present : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi'i Y.S. Tliakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORALOTO&ER (Passed on tlus 16th day ofJime, 2008) 1. Shri Y.S. Thakm^ leanied Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondesits submits that 110 notice isnecessary isi tlie matter as he is ready to argiie the matter on merit. Accordingly, with the consent of theparties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. By this petifion, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 20.07.2006 (Ajmexiire P/l) whereby, the application dated 17.07.2006, filed by the petitioner for compassionate appomtment, was rejected on the ground that as per circular, application should have been made within a period of six months from the date of death ofthe deceased employee. The application, being time bared, was accordingly rejected. 3. The mdisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the father oftlie petitioner working as Police Constable in Police Station, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, died in hamess on 24.10.1991. Bilaspur district, then,was a pml ofthe erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The present state of Chhattisgarh f came mto existence oh 01.11.2000. The petitioner filed an application s^ for compassionate appointment on 17.07.2006 after a period of about 15 years allegedfy on attaining the age of majority. The said application was rejected by order dated 20.07.2006 (Aiinexure P/l). Thereafter, a representation was made. Thepetitioner has filed this petition on 13.04.2008 aftei- a period of about 20 months, seeking quashmg of the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 and a suitable direction to the authority coiicemed to grasit compassionate appoisitment to the petitioner. 4. Shri Rishi P.ahul Soni, leamed couiisel appearisig for the petitiosier submits that tlie case of the petitioner is govemed by circular dated 10.06.1994 (Annexiire P/3) wherein, m clause-5, it is provided that a minor can make an application for compassiosiate appomtment on attaming tfie age of majority- Shri Soni would farther contend that memo dated 01.05.2000, whereiii, it is provided that the appUcation for compassionate appoisitment be made within a pei-iod of six months, is not applicable to the facts ofthe present case. Thus, the order dated 20.07.2006 (Aiinexiire P/l), passed by the resposident No. 2 is bad isi law and desen'es to be quashed. 5. Per conti'a, Shri Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate Geiieral, appearing for the State, would submit tiiat tiie compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule aiid compassionate appointment is given to tide over the sudden financial crisis of the family of the deceased employee. The father of the petitioner died on 24,10.1991. Family ofthe petitioner has sun^ived and the petitioner has failed to make even an application before 17-07.2006. The petitioner ^^m^?^ ^^.^^g'%., waited for more tlimi 15 years aiid the family has survived with its own sources. The circular dated 10.06.1994 is not applicable to the present casc as subsequent circular dated OL05.2000 and farther circular dated 02,02.2006 were granted time to time. Since tlie application was made recently in the year July, 2006, the prevailing circulars would be applicable. 6. Shri Thakur flii-ther submits that the circular dated 02.02.2006 provides for dependent ofthe deceased to malce an application for compassionate appointment within a period of six months from the date of death of govemment employee. The State govenimeiit has takesi a decision not to cosisider those cases wherem the govemment employee has died before 01.11.1997. Tlie said circular is approved by this Court. In the present case, father of the petitioner died on 24.10.1991. Thus, the application is even othenvise not maintamable. 7. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the paslies, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that circulai' dated 10.06.1994 was not prevailing when the application in the present case was made. The said circular was issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The present State of Chhattisgarh has passed subsequent circulars. Recently, the State of Chhattisgarh, by circular dated 02.02.2006, has p-ovided for making an application wiUiin a period of six months only in the case where tiie employee died after 01.11.1997. In the present case, fa&er of the petitioner died on 24.10.1991. AQ .^'^"^^1 t'/ ff ^^^ 1 ». 'V / N:%^^" . • . §^ It is well settled that the appointment 021 compassionate groimd is not a method of recmitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the obiect of compassioiiate appoisitment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden fiiiancia! crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also weil settled that mere death of the employee does siot entitie his family to ciaim compassioiiate appomtment ifthe family members could sustain themselves fliiaiicially from other sources ofincome. 9. In Haiycoia State Electricity Board and cmotker vs. Hakim Singh1 the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to give succor to the faiiiily to tide over the suddea fmancial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the mitimely demise ofits sole eammg members." 2 10. In the matter otState ofManipur vs. Md. Rajaodin'' thc Supremc Court, after having heard various cases 011 compassionate appointment, obsen/ed as under: "11. In Smt. Stislmia Gosain and Ors. v. Unfon oflndia and Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims ofappointment on compassionate grounds^ there should not be any delay m appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death ofthe bread-eamer in the family. Such appomtmeiits should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a mmor at tlie time ofdeath ofhis father is sio ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to stote that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without anv time consciousness or Umit. The above view was 1 (1997) 8 SCC 85 2AIR2003SCW4339 .-'f ;^. '"^ 1 :^ .^ 4l reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union oflndia afid ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 689) and Union oflndia artdors. v. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). Isi Director of Editcation (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of compassioiiate appointment tlierc cannot be msistence for a particiilar post. Oat of purely humanitarian oonsideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source oflivelihood is provided the family would siot be abie to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one ofthe dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature ofan exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appomtment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds ofthe dependant ofthe deceased employee. As it is isi the nature ofexception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taJdng away completely the right conferred by the main provision." 11. The Supreme Court in the case ofState ofJ & K and others Vs. Sajad AlimedMi^, in para 11 has held as under: "11.......it is that siich aii appointment is asi exception to the general mie. Normally, an employment in the Govemment or other public sectors should be opesi to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compiete with each other. It is in consonance with Ailicle 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Oiice it is proved that iiispite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is 110 necessity to say "goodbye" to the nomial mle of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost ofthe interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." 12. In view ofthe above well settled prmciples of law, applying to the fact^ ofthe case on hand, tiie petitioner does iiot desen^e any relief. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordmgly dismissed. No order asto costs. _ Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge 3.2006 (5) SCC 766