H!GH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BtLASPUR SiRgie Bench: Hon'bie Shri SaSsh K. Agnihotri, J. Wrtt Petitton No. 1343 of 2006 PetjSionsr Bhojpal Singh, S/o Lste Shri Virendra Singh, Aged about 25 years, R/o Rajapara Garh Bhitar Ga!i, Rsigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) The ChhatEisgarh State Etectrical Board Through the Chairman, Raipur (C.G.) Madhya Pradesh Etectrical Board Through the Chairman Bhopal (M.P.) ChiefEngineer C.S.E.B. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Divisiona! Engineer C.S.E.B. Division Raigarh Versus Responciente 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (C.G.) Union of India, Through - Director, personnel training, puUte grievance & Pension (State Reorganization Cstl) Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market Nsw Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTiCLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTiTUTJON OF INDIA Shri Dhsni Ram Patet, Advocate forthe petitioner. (Passed on this 8th day of April, 2008) 1. Lsarned counsel appearing for the pstitioner submits that the father of ths pstitioner namely Shri Virendra SJngh died in hamess on 24.4.1897, v»hen he v/as working as Office Assistant (Daftari) in the office of ttie Executive Engineer, C.S.E.B. Division Raigarh. 2. According to tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after death of the father of the petitioner, an application for compassionate appointment was made on 30.8.1997 but the same was not consiciered. After creation of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, the petitioner submittsd a copy of 2 <t. ^- the application dated 30.8.1997, vrfiich was addressed to the Secretary, M.P.E.B. Jabaipur, in the office of C.S.E.B. at Raigarh on 15.9.2007(Annexure P/3) but the concernsd authorities have not passed any order on the appiication submitted by the petitioner. Hs submits that ttie petitionsr is entitted to appointment on compassionate basis but ttie rsspondents/authorities have not considered the application of ttie petitioner. 3. The father of the pet'iB&ner died on 24.4.1897 and the petitioner has filed this petition on 10.3.2006 writti unexplained and inordinate delay, seeking a direction to the respondente to grant compassionate appointment. 4. !t is well settied that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but, is a faciiifr/ to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the famity in distress for reiiewng the depsndent famiiy membere of the deceased empioyee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appoint'nsnt is to enabte psnurious fami!y to tide over the suddsn financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is ateo v/ell settiec! that mere death of the employee does not entitie his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themseives financially from other sources of income. 5. In Haryana State Eiectricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh 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 financia! crisis befallsn the dependsnts on account ofthe untimely demise of its soie earning member." 6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmd Mi'2, in para 1 1 has heid as under :- 1{(19S7)8SCC85} 2{{2006)5S.C.C.76S} T^:- .1- \ ^/c ^^ "11............it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Govemment or other public sectors should be open to a!l s!igib!e candidates who can come forward to aDDlv and comoete with each other. It is in ft consonance with Articte 14 of ttie Constitution. On the basis of competiSve msrits, an appointment should be made to pubtic office. This gensra! rute should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole brsadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the famjly survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rute of appointment and to show favour to one at tte cost of the interests of severa! others ignoring the mandat® of Arttele 14 of the Constitutjon." 7. !n view of ttie above ssttled principtes of !aw, there is no merit in this petition. The petiBon is accordingly dismissed summarily. No order asto costs. sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' TTiakar 1