§EG§ CGURT OF CHHA’E‘TISGARH AT EILASPUR WRIT E’ETETIQN (S) Ne. 2% af 2998 $1M 2. The Cansen‘or 9f FereSL Ambikapur, istrict Surguia,C.G 3. The $1113 DIQ/isional Gifmer, ea Forest Diviaiom WRH E’ETH'ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTKON OF INDEA ’ resent: $hri Rakesh Pande Advocate for the peiiioner. e Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the Staie/rspondeiats. {Passee o: 25 gay a“ March, 2003) 1. By this petition, the yetitioner sees a writ in the nature of manéamus or k decti to the respondente to comiéer the ca$e of the petitioner for iron appointment on compassionate basis in ight of the circuiar dated 0.06. 1994 i 1 (Annexare P/3). 2 . The facts, in nutshell are that according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner. the father of tiae oetitioner was deciareci as medically unfit on 24.69. 1994 and he was granted voluntary retirement. A copy ofthe same has aot been filed alongwith this petition. The petitioner, being the dependant s03) of Shri Yadvendra Singh, tiled ao apeiieation for compassionate appointmem on 26.09. $94 in accordance with the circular oated 10m hue, 1994, whereby the then State of Madhya Pradesh provided for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of medically unfit employees. U). cireuiar was later on withdrawn on 03.01.1995 (Armexure PM). He further submits'that since tiie petitioner has fried the application for compassionate Shri Rakesit Pandey, learned counsel for the yetitioner fairly submits that this p ) Dist PETETIQNER : Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Late Yadvsndra Sirig‘rz, aged about 35 yeama Rio viihge Kalahaz‘di, Post Bada Harcii, Tahsii Sirmour, District Rewa MP. VERSUS RESPONBENTS '. 1. Statg of Chhatt§sgarh, Thmugh: Secretaay, Eepartmem of Forest, D.K.S.Bhawa11, Raipur, Distt. Raiur (CG ai D Kor Baikmithpm‘, rict Surguja C.G. ‘ SB: Hanhie Shri Satis§1 K. Agnihatrg J. P y. t ORAL ORDER i E eqypointmen: during the existence of the circuEar daiedr 10.06.1994, the patitioner ought to have been considered as per the said circuiar. Being aggrieved, the petitioner fiied original appiication being No. 850/1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal,‘Jabalpur. Aiier abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal: the matter was traiisferred to the High Couit of Madhya Pradesh wherein the case was registered as WP. No. 136201’2093. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabaipur vide order dated 26. 10.2005 disposed of the petition with direction to the State Government to decide the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassioaate grounds due to the voluntary retirement of his father on medical grounds in accordance with rules and regu1ations prevalent at that time within a period of two months from the date of the order. Pursuant to the order dated 26.10.2g05, the representation was decided by the Priiacipal Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration) Bhopal on 29092006 and held that the case of the petitioner can he decided by the present State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner, thereafter tiled one more petition heing WP. No. 8659 of 2007 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabaipur, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 2 1. 1 1 .2007. Thus, this petition. Be that as it may, it is weil 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 reliefand succor to the dependent family members of the deceased/medicatiy unfit person. In the present ease, the father of the petitioner was declared medically unfit on 24.09.1994. the petitioner has been in a position to sustain himself and his family members for about 14 years. At this stage, passing any order and directing the State Government to grant appointment, dehors the constitutional scheme of emptoyment, would not he proper and justified. / /'\\ [y 5 In ‘ aiyam Smre Electricig’ Board arid anarher Vs. Hakim Sing}: I the Supreme Court held that Whe whole object of any compassionate appointmem scheme is to give succor to the famiiy to tide over the sudden fmancial crisis befa11en the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.” The Supreme Court in the case ofSfafe ofJ & K and others VS. Scy’adAhmed Mir? , in para 11 has held as under: “11 ....... it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public. sectors shoulci be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be depaited 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. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and wbstantial period is overt there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule ofappointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” Applying the well settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case (supra) to the facts of the case and in View of reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to COStS . Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (l997) 8 SCC 85 (“2006) 5 SCC 766