Sing|el;Bench';.Hon!hfe;%r..:Jtist!ce Pritinkep;'Dswoker Sukschna Sahu Versus Stdteof CShattisqar'h Shri Parag Ko'tschd,cQynselfor'thepe+i+i6ner. Smt. Smitha (Shai, Panei Lawyer' for tl-fe State. WRTT IPETmON-UNDER^ARnCLE-226/227 OF Ti •CGNSTrTUtIQ %,£NbIA 3^^{30';:09:j:20]l$%:y^.l.::i: , ; : • • @rieNB^':.'o^i|N^^i3^^iQner^:;ts<that'^her^^;f^ i i [!' J<^disKTpasad.SaHu.died;.i lh®^ss;!e 2;6.7.2©©0.wh®n:bis-wai working as Forest wucrd. AGcnpding to'the petitior'er, .she fHed an apptjcGtion fQri .compQssiondte .qppointment on : ;L3.2QQ1 (Annexure P-1) byf.tte scms was not'gFanted to her whereas one Bhaskar •Pathare, wh&; olso^ lost' his fatlher.: wds givci'i compassionat&~aE!pointmenton.21i.5-2004vide;Anriexure!P-3.^^ 2.! .Gounsel^'fQr^he.petitioner' submits:f:haT the case:of tlhe petitioner anci thsf of,Bhaskor':JPathdre wss.F'ecommeRrfed |b^ the scmie order but the co^iof the petitjon®r'wfls ignoF'ed^or! ®ffi6TiiFounci:thai' af 'the ;relevan+ •lfime,.i'tieFel:'was1 eomplete :bm; on1 cQmpassiqncr^e.Qpp6ihtmertt.: Me;^yrthSr;suhmits t:hat,jsn'! 16.10.2007' <m: or^er '''has .fee^: 'Dossed' stal-iriq tl-iat] asi t^e petitionep 'has •air'egdy.':mB!"r1ed,;.'she : iis^^ compQssjonafs dppoiTt'meiit^ t-f&submits 't'Kajl' .at the,1"ime||jci'f :. filing of .the' ,appi:icat;jo»t.,,:.fo";^on'paS3io>-iate •"appojiciti-nenf, Retit:ioneF was'nQt:::lmarri^3'<»ci,:!;theFef%^ ,y '^•^''" ::\ :-^"' obliged .fo issue tKe compassionate .Gppointment in favQu" of tfte petitioner. . . 3. On the other hwid, opposina +hscoss 6f fhe'petitioner, it has beeh submitted by the State that father of :the petitionerfdiedintheyeap2000and,fffteralapseofl0years, petitioner is not entitlsd for CQmpassiona+e appsintment. He subfflits that qnce the pe'i'itioner is mwried/ compassionste appointment cannot be gpGnted to her ds the main.object for giying such appointment istp meet out the immedidte hardsi'iip occurring qs a result of the deceasedempibyee.' ;4. .•' 't'Kt^.heG^ coynsetfor^t^ 5. ^i^adi^i^ed;ij:ac?t- is,:tbat^af^ her- father, the petitioner hds airec^y'maRpi^aHd under flo circumstcu'fces she can be tregted as dependdnt oflcrt'e Jagdjsh Prasaci :5ohu, deceased empioyee. Furthermore, after lapse of .10 years when the famiiy of the deceosed smployee •has survived, ho companionate appointment can be grwited, more so, the fdmily must have received the retiral dues of the deceased. The petitioner car!not clqim: ;any, parity wtthi Bhaskar ^PcttHffre because no such document has been filed as to on what circumstances Bhaskar Pflthare was granted corapassionafe appointment. Petitjoner cannot claim OF say;fhcrt'.iflshe.cw!not be^appointed then hw brofher be.given;tbe said.appOintnisnt, Thebrother of the petitionef has not approached|this CQurt, this Court' is not'oware about tfe faets 6f the'^cse ofiit brother of the petitioner'and about the present sl-atus^of] her brother, without bringing^all 'theis&facts rio ,such appoifTNTient con be grimted tQ.the -brother bf.the peT|t|or}§p.^i.ir'ttiwnnore, the case of the brotherio-F.tl-iepe^itJoner is to 68'considgre'd in^hetight.oftheiegdlposi1'ion..'1';,^^. ^ '"% .^^^^.^.^-^ '-- i]~^'t^,',''-' °i It has been. held by the Apex Court- and this Court in cqtenaof casesthat thecompassionateappointmenteannot be ciaimed as a matter of right and the main object of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to th.e deceased employee's family. TKis Gourt is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is nQt entitled for ciny compassionatecippointment.' 6. The petition has^no accopdingiydismigsed. substance and the same is \ ..:.; •' , SdA i PritinkerDiwaker j Judge