-(^) COU'RT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPQNDENT8 WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3197 of2008 Devendra Kumar Sen Son of Late Shri Gopal Sen, aged about '22 years, .Resident of Gokulpyr Ward (Near Uxmi Niwas), Dhamtari, Thasil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. TheC,G,Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Regional OfBce, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) through: its Managmg Director. 2. The Director, C.G. Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Director, C.G. Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Raipur Division, Raipur (C,G.) 4. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dhamtari (C.G.) through: ite 8ecretaryr. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CON8TITLrriON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Sliri Satish K. AgmiiotTl, J. Present: Shri P.P.Sahu. Advocate for the petitioiier. Shri Y.S.Tliakur, Deputy Advocate General with SM A|ay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents, ORALOKDER (Passed on 01st day of July, 2008) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is tak-en up for hearing finally. 2. This is; a petition filed by Shri Devendra Kiimar Sen, who seeks a d.irectioii to consider his case for.grant of appomtmeiit o,n compassionate basis. A.dmittedly, the- fatber of the petitioiier Shri Gopal Sen, while workmg as Assistant Sub Inspector, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dhamtari, died in hamess on 16.04.1998. Accordmgto leamed counsel appearing for the petitionen the petitioner applied for comp^sionate appomtnient on attainmg tfae age of majority 031 20.02.2006 ~~~i :2' -. (Amiexure P/2). Tfae respondent authQrities, afterhaving considered the case ofthe petitioner, rejected hisapplicationon 30.11.2007 (Annexure P/5) holding that fhe circular dated 01.05.2000 provides for consideration of the application of the depeiidents ofthe deceased employee ifthesaid application is made withm aperiod ofthree years j5:om the date of death ofthe deceased employee. 3. Ha^ing heard leamed couiisel fbr the parties, pemsed^A^ appended1^r€to,fhecirciilard^ makmg applieation. Thereafter, acircularda^d 2.2,2006 w by the State of Ghhaftisgaili. It appears ffi^ as tiiere is no reference regardmglhe sam^ in^ tiie fact remains that the said circular provides for makmg application within a period of six months only m the case ifthe employeehasdiedafter 01.11.1997. In the present case, the father ofthe petitioner died on 16.04.1998. 4. It is well settled that the appomtment on compassionate ground is not a method of reemitment but isA^ility to provide for immediate rehabiliM^ ofthe family m distress for relievingthe dependent family members ofthe deceased employee from destitutioa In other words^ the object ofcompassionate appointment is to enable penurious faniily to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. K is also well sdtled that mere death ofthe employee does not entitle his family to claim eompassionate appointment ifthe family membefs could sustam tiiemselves financsally ffom other spurces ofmcome. 5. !n Hafyana StQte ElQctricity Board and another vs, Hakim Singh the Suprsme Court held that the whole object of any compassionate appomtment schemes is to I(199T;8SCC85 give succor to the family to tide over the sudden fmancial crisis befallen the dependents on account ofthe untimely demise ofhs sole eaming members. 6. In the matter of State ofManipur vs. Md Rajaodin2 tiie Supreme Court, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under : "11. In Smt Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union oflndia and Ors. (J989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed fhat in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, fhere should not be any delay m appointment. The puq)ose of providmg appointmeiits on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-eamer m the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided iiTimediateIy to redeem fhe family m distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such isimor becomes a niajor he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit, The above view was reiterated mPhoolwati (Smt.) v. Union oflndia and ors. (199} Svpp (2) SCC 689) and Union oflndiaand ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (1995 ^6) SCC 476). In Direcfor ofEducation (Secondan?) andAnr. v. Pushpendra Kumar an^ Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed fhat in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian coHsideration aiid having regard to the fact that unless some source oflivdihood is provided the family would not be able to make bofh ends meet, provisions are made for giving appomtment to one of the dependants ofthe deceased who may be eligible for appomtment. Care has, however, to be taken fhat provision for ground of conipassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly mterfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appomtment to seek appointment against fhe post which would have been available, birt 4 AiR 2003 SCW 4339 4 for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee.As it is in the nature of exception to fhe general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred bythe main provision." 7. The Supreme Court in the case ofState ofJ & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mi^, in para 11 has held as under: 6611.......it is that such an appomtxnent is an exception to fhe general rule. Normally, an employment intfae Govemment or other piiblic sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 ofthe Constitution. On the ba^is of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compellmg circumstances demaiid, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family sutYering because ofthe setback. Once it is proved that inspite ofthe death of the breadwinnen the family sur^ived and siibstantialperiod is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal mle of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost ofthe interests of several others ignormg the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitutioa" \ 8. In view ofthe above wetl settled principles of law, applying to the facts ofthe case onhand, the petitioner does not deser^e any relief. There is no merit m this petition. The petition is accordmgly dismissed. No order asto costs, Sd/- SatishK.Agnihottl Judge Amit 3-2006(5)SCC7&6 k