% ^^ o' ^F^ HSGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BSLASPUR ^ Bench: Hoh'bie Shri Satlsh K. Agnlhotrs, J. Writ PetJtion (S) NQ. 733 of 2008 Pststioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Nagendra Singh Parihar, S/o. Late Shlv Singh Parihar, Aged about 22 years, R/o. ViSiage & Post Nirjam. TahsIS MungeSI. District BJIaspur (C.G.) The State of ChhattEsgarh, Through : Secretar/ Department of Health, D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (C.G.) The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Secretar/, Department of Health, VaiSabh Bha'wan. Bhopa! (M.P.) The Commjssioner, HeaSth Servjces. Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) Director, HeaSth Semces, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Medica! Officer, Bilaspur. Dlstrict BIJaspur (C.G.) The Collector, Bliaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WR!T PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTiTUTION OF iNDiA Shn Gautam Khetrapai, Advocate for the petjtioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deput/ Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1. 4, 5 and 6. ORAL (Passed on fhis 4th day of February, 2008) 1. According to learneci counsel appearing for the pstitloner, the father of the pstltioner namejy Shri Shiv Singh Parihar. was workSng as J. M. I. In Primary HeaSth Center, MuRgeii, Djstrict - Bitaspur, when he disd on 3.7.1985 inharness. 2. The mother of the petitjoner. made an applicatjon on 5.2.1987 (Annexure P/3) that stnce her chjlciren are mlnor, when they v/i!{ sttain the majorit^. they v»'§!{fi!e an appSication for compassionate appointment. 3. AfSer attaining majority, the petitioner fijed anapplicatiGR dated 13.8.2005 (Annexure P/4) for compassionate appojntmsnt to the respondent No.5. The applicatjon of the petitioner was fopvvarded to the Dtrsctorate, Heaith Semces, Bhopai (M.P.), as the matter refatss to the ysar 1985 l.e. for the perlod of undsvjded State of Madhya Pradesh. The Djfectorate, Heaith Servicss. Bhopat vide !etSer datsd 27.7.2006 (Annsxure P/1) informed the petitjoner that there is n6 provision for providing compassSonate appointment to the petjttoner after a period of seven year of the death of the employee (father ofthe petitioner). 4. Learned counseS appearing for the petjtioner submlts that the petltjoner is sntitled to appotntment on compassionate basis 'vvhen he attained the majority'. Learned counsej for the petitloner pSaced reiiance on a declsion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court §n Mohan Mahto Vs. B»Vs. CentraS Coat Fie!d Ltd. & Ors. <2007 AIR SCW 6060). 5. The petitionsr has ftSsd this petitjon ¥i?ithunexpiained and Inordinats delay, seeking a directlon to the respondents to grant compassionate appojntment. The father of the petitioner died on 3,7.1985 and the mother of the petjtlonsr did not make an appljcation for compassionate appojntment at that time. 6. tt is v<?eS! settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment. but, is a faciiSty to provide for Immediate rehabISjtation of the famjjy in distress for reiieving the dependent famliy members of the deceased employee from destltution. In other words. the object of compassionaSe appointment js to enable penurious famiiy to tjde over the sudden financial crisis and Is not to provide employment. !t js a!so |^IN»' ^N^ we!S settSed that mere death of the empioyse does not entitie his famlSy to claim compassjonate appointment if the family members could sustain themseives finandaiSy from other sources of income. 7. In Haryana SSate Electricity Board and another Vs. Haklm Slngh {(1997) 8 SCC 85 } the Supreme Court heid that "the whoie object of any compassjonate appointmsnt scheme is to give succor to the family' So ticie over the sudden financjai crisjs befaiSen the dependents on account of the untjmsly demise of its soSe eaming rnember." 8. The Supreme Court jn the case of State of J & K and oShers Vs. Sqjad Ahmd Msr {(2006) 5 S.C.C. 766}. in para 11 has heSd ss under:- "11............lt ts that such an apposntment is an exception to the generaS rule. NormaSSy, an employment In the Govsrnment or othsr publjc sectors shouid be open to aSi eSigibSe candidates v^ho can come forA'ard to appSy and compete with each other. §t is In consonance v/ith ArtScte 14 of the ConstjtuSion. On the basls of compstttlvs merits, an appolntment shouict be made to pubSic of^ce. This general rule shouSd not be departed from except where compeillng circumstances demand. such as. death of the sote breadwjnner and {Iksiihood of the faml!y suffering because of the setback. Once It Is provecS that In spite of the death of the breadwinner. the famiiy survlved and substantiaS period Is ovsr. there Is no necesshy to say "goodbye" to the normaS ruSs of appojntment anci to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of severai others isnoring the mandate of Articie 14 of the Constitutlon." 9. The judgment and order passed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of SVIohan MahSo (supra) is not appilcabte to the facte of the present case. !n the case of Mohan fclahto (supra), the Natlonal CoaS Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.) provides that ths maie depsndent of concerned worker, 15 years and above in age, wilt be kept on IIve roster and wou!d be provided employment commensurate wjth his sklSI and quaSJfications Thakur when he attains the age of 18 years. Further. the father of Mohan Mahto dtscj on 23.2.1997 ancS the petstioner made an appilcation on attajning the age of majorjfr/ on 26.9.1989. Ths facts in the present case are different, v/here the petitioner has fsieci an appIJcaSIon on 13.8.2005 i.e. after a period of 20 years. v/ithout disciossng the reasons for dslay. Accordino to Searned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petjtioner attained ths age of majorify In ths year 2002. as he v/as bom on 9.10.1984. Thsreafter. the petitjoner has taken more than three years in making application wlthout expjalntng inordjnats cSelay. 10.Sn vlew of the above settlsd princlpSes of law, there Is no merit in this petition. Ths petition Is accordingly ctlsmissed summariSy. No ordsr asto coste. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge