IN THE HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRJSl/3^/2010 PETITIONER / RESPONDENTS SMT. KESARI BAI SAHU, W/o Late Loknath Sahu, f^\e. *bouA- S8 Y<OUS R/o Village Sankara, Tahsil Nagari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS (l)StateofChhattisgarh through Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Tribal Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (2) State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Deptt.ofTribalWelfare Bhopal. (3) Collector, Tribal Development Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C:G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA iir*< !-f»fcj<mt.'ttiwiniL:.•wuniw.ii—jiiru r- AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitiou (81 No. 130 of 2010 Petitioner Smt Kesari Bai Sahu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITON UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Beach: Honlile Shri Satlsh K. Agaihotri, J. Shri Yogesh Paadey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Paael Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 azid 3. Heard. ORDERfOrall (Passed oa this lltb day ofjanuary, 2010) The petifioner, by this petition, seeks to challenge the order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Assistaat Coininissioner, Tribal Development, Dhamtari, whereby fhe prayer of fhe petitioner for graat ofcoinpassionate appoiatmeut has been rejected. According to leamed counsel appearing for (he petitioner, fhe husbaiid of fhe petitioaer Loknath Sahu was working as Assistant Teacher, ia the Govt. Primary School, Raaigaon, District - Dhaoitari, under flie Tribal Developnient Department, who died on 27.10.1990 ia haraess. The petitioner made aa appUcation for graat of coiupassionate appoititment, which was forwarded by fhe Block Education OfBcer, Nagri by memo dated 18.7.1994 (Annexure P/2). Subsequenfly, by letter dated 9.4.2001 (Aitnexure P/3) it was informed to the petitioner that the appUcation filed by her was iacoinplete. Now, by the uiipugned order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P/1) the prayer of the petitioner for graat of conipassioaate appoiatinent has been rejected on the ground fhat in view of fhe circular dated 2nd February, 2006 ftie petitioner is uot entitled for grant of compassionate appoiatment as her husbaad died on 27.10.1990 Le. prior to 1.11.1997. Leamed couiisel appearuig for fhe petitioner subraits that there was no fault on fhe part of the petitioner in delaying the inatter. lu fact the inatter was pending at the level of the concemed authorities, thus the applicatiou of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground luentioned iu fhe impugned order dated 23.7.2009. 7. I bave heard leamed counsel appeacmg for fhe parties aad perused fhe pleadiags and dociunents appended thereto. The husband offhe petitioner died on 27.10.1990. It is not clear asto when. the petitioner niade aa appUcation for graat of coxnpassiouate appointment. However, it is apparent fhat fhe appUcation of the petitionerwas foiwarded on 18.7.1994 (Anuexure P/2) i.e. after about four years of fhe deafh of the husbaud of the petitioner. It is also not clear asto what steps were taken by the petitioner when she was mformed by letter dated 9.4.2001 (Aanexurc P/3) fhat the appUcation filed by her was uicomplete. It is apparent that the petitioner has slept over her prayer for grant ofcoinpassionate apponitmeut for a period of about 20 years aad now has filed fhis petition for a direction to the respondeuts to grant her coinpassionate appoiataient. After bifurcation of the State of MacUhya Pradesh, the State of Chliatdsgarh has issued the circular dated 2nd Februar}-, 2006 (Annexure P/6), which provides for grant of coiapassionate appoiatiiient in the State of Chliattisgarh to fhe dependents of those einployees who died ia haruess on or after 1.11.1997. Looking iuto the object of fhe coinpassionate appointinent and the nature of appointraent, any appUcation ma.de belatedly, can be rejected on the grouad that the appUcation was not ffled as early as possible, niay be 3 monfhs/six monfhs, fhus at fhis stage after a period of about 20 years the petitioner has got over the sudden financial crisis aad needs no coinpassion. The priaciple oflaw on the coinpassiouate appoiatment is well setUed. The coiupassionate appointment is grauted only ia fhe event, if an einployee dies in hamess aild on account of sudden deafh, the dependent fanuly has becoine penurious ou sudden deinise of ftie bread earaer of the fanuly. The coiapassionate appoiatment itsetf is a backdoor eutry. It is a departure from. the general rule oferaployxneut, as provided under the provisions of Article 14 aad 16 of the Constitution of India. The appoiatment ODL coiapassionate basis is not ia accordaace wifh the constitutional scheiae of einployment but in order to sub-serve fhe above stated purpose, this provision has been inade under the Rules framed by fhe State Govenunent. (see Commissfon.cr of Pu&Kc Jnstructtons (ind others vs. K.Ji. 8. 9. 10. Vishiacincith1, State ofJ&K eind. others vs. St^ad Ahnwd is, National Institute of Technology aad others Vs. Nusq Kumar Singh3}. It is well settled that the appointment on coinpassionate ground is not a inethod of recruitment, but, is a facflity to provide for iminediate rehabilitation of titie family in distress for relievin.g fhe dependent family nieinbers of the deceased eraployee froni destitution. In other words, the object of coinpassionate appoiatment is to enable penurious fanuly to tide over fhe sudden financial crisis and is not to provide einployinent. It is also weU settled fhat rueie death of the einployee does not entitle his famfly to ' claira coiapassionate appoiatoiient if the famUy Bieinbers could sustaui theniselves fiiiaacially froni ofher sources ofincome. Applyiag the settied principle of law as enunciated by fhe Hon'ble Supreiae Court ia various cases (Supra), to fhe facts of fhe present case, there is no necessity to taJke recoiirse to exceptional niethod of recruitiaent i.e. covitrary to fhe normal rule of appoiataient at the cost ofiaterest ofseveral other persons on the touchstone ofArdcles 14 or 16 ofthe Constitution. In view of the foregoing, fhis petition is devoid of inerit and is accordingly disinissed. Sd/- f SATISH K. AGNMOTRI Judge Thakur