!T ‘k 0/0?}®@£“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR mash Shivendra Giri Goswami, S/o. Late Shri Kailash Giri Goswami, aged about 26 years, R/o. Ward No.23, Ayodhya Nagar, Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (c.G.) (c.G.) w.p. s No. 2009 S§mg§Q . / PETITIONER VERSUS / RESPONDENTS :1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Chief Conservator of Forest (Administrative/Non-Gazette), Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Conservator of Forest, Circle Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Divisional Forest Officer, General Forest Division, Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITI6N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ writ Petition (S) No. 4994 of 2009 'A ‘ Petitioner Shivendra Gim' Goswami Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh 8r, others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Siagle Bench: Hon‘ble Shn‘ Satish K. Agihotri, J. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K, Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. o R D E R 10ml) gPassed on this 13th day of January, 2010} Heard. The petitioner, by this peu'h'on, seeks to challenge the order dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P] 1), passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby the prayer ofthe petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the father of the petitioner Shri Kailash Gili Goswami was working as Forest Guard in the Forest Department, who died on 20.6.2008 in harness. Late Shri Kailash Giri Goswami had two wives i.e. Smt. Sakun Goswami and Smt. Chandrakala Goswami. The petitioner is son of Smt. Sakun Goswarni (first widow) and Ms Priyanka Goswami is daughter (sister of the peh'tioner). Smt. Chandrakala Groswami (second widow) is already working on the post of Accountant in the Forest Department. After death of the father of the petitioner, in accordance with the judgment dated 4.9.2008, passed by the First Civil Judge, Class—I, / Mahasamund, the pension of the deceased employee (father of the petitioner) was divided in two shares i.e. half of the amount to the first widow and half of the amount to the second widow. The contention of the petitioner is that since the second widow of the deceased employee is already in service, on account of death of his father, one of the family members i.e. the petitioner, is entitled to compassionate appointment. Thus, the impugned order dated 20.3.2009 is not sustainable. Further contention of the petitioner is that both the widows are living separately, and the second widow, who is already in service, is not ’\\ ‘49v aintaining the &st widow and hm‘ chiidren, as such the petitioncr is entitled for compassionate appointment. I have heard learncd counsel appearing'for the particjs and peruspd the pleadmgs and documents appended thereto The pnnc1ple of law on the compassmnate appomunent 1s well settled The compassaonatsa appomtment 1s granted only m the event, 1f an employee dies in harness and on account of sudden death, the dependent family has become penurious on sudden demise of the bread earner of the family. The compassionate Vappoinmlent itself is a backdoor enuy. It is a departure inom the general rule of employment, as provided under the provisions of A11ic1e 14 and 16 of the Consdtution of India/The appointment on compassionate basis is not in accordancewith the consn‘tutional scheme of employment but in' order to sub—serve the above stated purpose, this provision has been made under the Rules framed by the State Government (see Commissioner of Public Instruwmis and others vs. K.R. Vishwauathl, State‘ofJ & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed W, National Institute of Technology and others Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh3 }. As per the policy of theGovemme/nt dated 10.6.2003 if a member of the deceased employee is already in service, no compassionate appointment can be granted to other member. The policy of the Government dated 21 9 2007 prowdes that 1f yearly mcome of the dependents of the deceased family 1s more than Rs 60 000/ then Widow/Widower or son] daughter or any other member ls not enutled for compassionate appointment, It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the/deceased employee n'om destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable pemuious family to tide over the sudden hnancial crisis and is not to ‘ provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate (J x \\ 1 2 (2005) 7 soc 206 3 (2005) 5 see 766 (2007) 2 soc 481 m kg appointment if thc family membErs could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. 10. It is trite law that the appointment on compassionate basis to the dependent of the deceased employee can be granted only in accordance with the policy of the Government. If there is no policy to grant compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee, no Wlit can be issued against the Government to grant any appointment, including the compassionate appointment. (See Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another", and Commissioner of Public Instructions and others vs. K.R.Vishwanath5) 11. In the present case, the policy dated 21.9.2007 clearly provides that if any widow/widower or unmarried son of the deceased employee is a earning and his income exceeds more than Rs. 60,000] — per annum, in that case, no widow/widower or son] daughter or any other member would be entitled to compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the second Widow, which has been recognize by a competent Court also, pursuant to which half of the pension is being paid to her, is in Government employment and there is no dispute that she is earning less than Rs. 60,000I— per annum. Thus, the impugned order dated 20.3.2009 seems to be unexceptionable, warranting no interference. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no writ can be issued, directing the respondents] authorities, to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment de hors the above stated policy. 13. Applying the settled principle of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases (Supra), to the facts of the present case, there is no necessity to take recourse to exceptional method of recruitment i.e. Contrary to the normal rule of appointment at the cost of interest of several other persons on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. 14-. In View of the foregoing, this petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. er\i ,makur 4 (1994)2 scc 718 5 (2005) 7 scc 206 Sd/ 1 Satish K. Agnihotri’ Judge ‘ i.