-^" HIGH OXtRT W CTHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition fSl No. 2719 of 20)7 PetiUoner RteBondaits Durg^h Prasad Mfehia, S/o Krishna Prasad Mlshra, Aged about 32 yeais, R/o Village Nagpura, Tehsil & District Durg, C.G, VCTSUS 1. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Generat AdmnistraUon, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantrabya, Ralpur, Chhatttsgath 2. Chief Coreenrator of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarti, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. 3. Additlonat Chlef Conservator of Forest, (Adm./Non-Gazetted) Ralpur, C.G. 4. Conservator of Forest, Durg Cirete, Dtetrict Durg, C.G, 5. Dhrisfonal Forest OfTrcer, Rirest Divlston, Durg, District Durg, C.G. 6. The Cottector, District Durg, C.G. Writ petition undcsrArHcte 2Z6<rfthe ConsUtuyon uf Xndia Smgle Bench; Hon'bte Mr. JusUca Satlsh K. Agnihotri. Present; Mr, Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the petjtioner, . Sunita 3aln, Panel Lawyer fbr the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 4th Day of May,2007) 1. The petitioner, son of Late Shri Krishna Prasad Mishra, seeks a directfon to the respondent authorities to grant compasstonate appointment. 2. TTie indtsputable facts, In nutshell, are that the father of Ihe petlttoner namely Shrl Krishna Prasad Mlshra, whlte working as Forester in the offfce of Dh?isional Forest OfHce at Durg, dfed in harness on 11.03.1996. The pettttoner made an applicatton for compasstonate appotntment on 14.06.1996. Thereafter, several representattons were made. The petittoner made one rrure application on 04.01.2001. It was replied by the Stata authoriUes ttiat no vacancy is availabte as on 08.12.2006. \ ^-^ 3. Be that as it may. It is well settted that the appolnbrwnt on compasstonate ground is not a method af recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilltatton of the family In distress for relivtng <he dependent famtly members of the deceased emptoyee from destltutton. In other words, the object of compasstonate appointment is to enabte penurtous family to tide over the sudden flnancial crisis and te nrt to provide emptoyment. H Is abo well settted that mere death of the employee does not entttle his family to claim compasstonate appointment if the family members could sustain themselvffi. flnanclally frmn other sources of income. 4. In Haryana State Electrictty Board and another Vs. HaMm Sngh {(1997) 8 SCC 85} the Supreme Court held that "the whote object of any compassionate appointment scheme teto gh/e succor to the family to tide over the sudden flnancial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demlse of it sote ramfrig member." 5. The Supreme Court in the case of State of 3 & K and <rthers Vs. S&jad Ahmed Mir {(2006) 5 SCC 766}, tn para 11 has held as under: "II...... It is that such an appointmmt Is an excepUon to the general rule. Normally, an empfoyment in the Govemment or other publfc sectors should be open to all eliglbte candidates who can awne fomard to apply and compete wlth eadi other. R is in consonance with Artlcte 14 of the Constitutton. On the basls of competlUve merite, an appolntment should be made to publte offlce. TTiis general rute shouM not be departed from except where compelBng circumstances deirond, sudi as, dMth of the sote breadwinner and likelihood of the family sufferhg because of tfte setftack. Once It te proved that in spite of the death of the breadwftiner, the family suivftfed and substanttal period is over, Uiere is no nec^sity to say "goodbye" to tfte nonnal rute of appolntment and to show favwr to once at the cost of the interest of severat otheis ignoring the mandate of Articte 14 <rf the Constftutlon." 6. In view of the above settted principte of law, there ts no merit in thfe petitton. The petltton is accordlngly dismissed summarily, No order as to costs. ^13^1 Sd/- _ . SansbK.Ag"&otn ludge