PR ETITIONE a0 léhom Lal Dhur‘ve, S/o La’re Salik Ram Dhur‘ve, aged. about 24 years, R/o Village— Pipla Kachhar‘, P.O. Pandadah, Tahsil Khaimgarh, DisTr'ic‘r- Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS 1. Through— The Secremry, School EducaTion D.K.S. @ @ smGLE sane}: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (s) No. é?0 /2o11 NV /S+ate of Chhah‘isgarh, Deparfmen‘l‘, Bhawan, Raipur (6.6.) Dis’rr'icf Educa’rioh Officer, Rajnandgaon, DisH‘. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) wgWéI/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 670 OF 2011 PETITIONER Khom L'al Dhurve Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 4‘“ day of February, 201 1) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely; Salik Ram Dhurve (since deceased) while working as Peon in the respondent department, was convicted by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 163/1990 for commission of murder of Kanhaiya. On the basis of said conviction, the father of the petitioner was terminated from the service. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the father of the petitioner along with other co- accused persons preferred an appeal being criminal appeal No,1125/1991 (Siyaram & Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh). During pendency of the said criminal appeal, the father of the petitioner died on 28.7.1996 as is evident form the death certificate (Annexure P-3). This Court by judgment dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure P—4) acquitted the father of the deceased. On the basis of said decision, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment, which has been rejected by the respondent authorities by order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P—7) on the ground that the petitioner has not made the application for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of six months from the date of/‘the death of the deceased employee, in View of the circuiar dated 2.2.2006. 4. On the other hand, learned counsei appearing for the State submits that after appreciating the case of the petitioner on its own perspective, rightly rejected his application. Even otherwise, as per the circular dated 2.2.2006, the application for grant of compassionate appointment has to be made within six months from the date of circular, wherein the employee had died between 1.11.1997 and 31.10.2000. In the case on hand, the employee died on 28-7—1996 prior to 1.11.1997. m9x....5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the circular dated 02/02/2006 with regard to compassionate appointment on the basis of cut-off date i.e. 01/1 1/1997 has been considered and approved by this Court in a catena of decisions, Clause 3 (9) 3 of the circular dated 02/02/2006 provides that “Hg—min iagian s—g’ fita‘ri?a 31W 113i WWW$W$WWWWWah Emeswahwmzhmwmgniamwwnm§l 3W tmwmwwwwwwuss‘iami". Thus,the ground of rejection does not seem to be illegal or improper. 6. It is a trite law that compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the constitutional schemes of employment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate basis can be considered only in accordance with the State policy, Application made beyond the period of six months from the date of death of the deceased employee, is not entertainable. Thus, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the authority. 7. ln view ofthe fOregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. No order asto costs. Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun