*“ 4*; irrre-i;:% ' AFK t Sd/- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t {139. WW‘ i 0y >; ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR J I WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1470 of 2005 J APPLICANTS : Prem Sagar Gupta & Another § VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS : State ofM.P. & Others. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment and order on ..23./03/2009. A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1470 0f 2005 : 1. Prem Sagar Gupta son 0f Shri Hari Shankar Gupta, aged about 60 years, Head Master (Retired) Govt. Middle School Jatari District Raigarh (MP) 2. Vidya Sagar Gupta son of Shri Prem Sagar Gupta, aged about 26 years, resident of Rusalda ‘ Via Kenda Tarai District Raigarh. NON-APPLICANTS : l. State of M.P. Through Secretary School Education Department Bhopal (M.P.) APPLICANTS VERSUS 2. Joint Director Public Instruction, Education Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur (M.P.) 3. Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Jatari District Raigarh (M P ) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri_,_J. Present: Shri Sanjay K Agrawal Advocate for the petitioner Shrr Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate General With Smt Sinita Ghai Panel Lawyer for the State/respondcnts (Passed on ...,?.5.g.day ofMarch, 2009) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2, who is the younger son of the petitioner No. l, a retired Head Master on account of medical unfitness. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No. l was working as Head Master and retired on the ground of medical unfltness. Thereafter, on the basis of circular dated 18.02.1994 (Annexure A/4), wherein a provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employee who retired from service on account of medical unfitness was provided, he filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment to his elder son namely Pramod Kumar Gupta, t who died during pendency of the said application. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for grant of appointment to the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground on 11.12.1996 Vide Annexure A/6. According to the petitioners, by circular dated 03.01.1995 (Annexure A/7) the State Government decided not to grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employees who retired from the service on account of medical untitness. 3. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioners, in the petition itself admit the fact that the grant of compassionate appointment has been withdrawn by the government subsequently by circular dated 3-1-1995 (Annexure A/7). Even otherwise, the compassionate appointment is given only to those persons who are in great distress. 4. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate basis is not a regular appointment. This is a back door entry. The grant of compassionate appointment is to provide relief and succor to the dependent family members of the deceased/medically unfit person. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 (father of petitioner No. 2) was declared medically unfit on 02.01.1995, the petitioners have been in a position to sustain themselves and their family members for about 13 years. At this stage, passing any order and directing the State Government to grant appointment, dehors the constitutional scheme of employment, would not be proper and justified. 5. In Harycma State Electricity Board and another VS. Hakim Singh I the Supreme Court held that “the whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.” ;-.1 The Supreme Court in the case ofStaz‘e ofJ & K and others Vs. SajadAhmed Mr2 , in para 11 has held as under: “11 ....... it is that such an appointment is an exception to the such as, death of the sole bread Winner, the ' the family suffering becau“a of the setback. Qnce it is proved “goodbye” to the normal favour to one at the cost ’ ignoring the mandate ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution.” Applying the well settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case that during filing of second application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2 the circular dated 18—2— petitioner No.2 is not entitled to any relief. In View of reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I. (1997) 8 SCC 85 2. (2006) 5 SCC 766 Amit ,