g Siam a§aw IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU (CG) w. P. N039é5 0f 2004 PETITIONER 1 6V3“. v Devendra Gopal Ram Kumar Mmkmnaiiagsstéoéit§é8h§ged M g} «Ly? (y about 19 years res1dent of Vlllage & Post- Pond tah511-Gun1r Dlst Durg (C G) {a " “€ ‘ Q. x®§ VRSUS Kanker, Dist. North Bastar—Kanker (C.G.) Deputy Director of public Instruction, Education, Dist. Kanker (CG) The State of Madhya Pradesh through Secretary of Education Department, W My .t Bhopal Bhopal(MP) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITION CERTIORARI ETC OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER R . ? w” 3&6 RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh through secretary of Education department D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, North Bastar Kanker, Dist. North Bastar—Kanker (C.G.) District Education Ofiicer, North Bastar— AH? / / \ \ \ \ HIGH CGURT GP JU9KCATURE- SHHATTISGARH: §ELASP$R h’” i Single Bench: Hon’ble shri Satish K. Aglihotri, J. W. P. No. 3965 sf 2004 Patjtian ar : Dewndra Kumar Markam Vémus R€spand€at : State of Chhattisgarh 85 athafs Shri R. S. Patal, Advocat€ far tha petitioner. Shn' Arum Sao, Govt. Advocat€ for the respondonts No. 1 to 4. None for the respondent No.5. G3D§£ 1 22'"! Novembex, 2006) 1. The father of the petitioner namely Shri Gopal Singh Markam was working as Assistant Teachor in primary soliool, viHagev Lohattar, talisil— Bhaouprawppur, dishiot- Kanker, when he died on 21.9. 1996 if) harness. Tho mothor of the patitioner namely Smt. Sumitra Bai Markam moved an application for compassionate appointment on 3. 10.1996 (Annexure P,’ 5) and thereafter representations; 23.1.1998 {Annexure 13,!6), 6.9.1999 (Annexure Pl?) and other representations were. made. She was not granted compassionate appointment and she did not challenge the same. 2. Later on, as the mother of the petitioner beoanie ovei" age, the netitioner, eing eldest major son, made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 10.4.2004 (Annexme P111). The petitioner has tiled this petition. seeking a. direction to the tespondents to grant compaseionate appointment. ‘3. There is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in applying for grant of compassionate appointment as the father of the petitioner {tied on 21.9.1996 and. the petitioner has app1ied for grant of v- \ éx campassianate appomtm€n€ on 10.4.2004, Whan 3w attajmid th€ aga sf majan'ty, to he. appGint€d in government institutions. 1t is well sattlar}. principk‘. that a belated petiiion should. not be emén'tajned if the petitisner has failed to exylain. i110rdi113t€ daay. Durmg this period fhe p1aca, if any, which was vacant, might have b€en tilled up ami swam} l3ei~smas must have settlgd their rights. It is we}! settled that the appaintment on compassionate ground is not a method of mcmitment, but, £8 a facih'ty to provida for immadiatE. rahabilitatien of the. family 1h dist‘rass for ielieving the o‘ependent family mambem of the‘deceastld emoloyeo from dastitution. In omor words, tho object of compassionate: a13poi11tment is to ona‘oio penurious family to tide over tho sudden financial crisis and is not to provicie employment. it io also Well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves tinanoiallv from other sources of income. 4. In Haryana state Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh { (1997) 8 SCC 85 } an employee died in harness leaving behind him a minor son. As per the compassionate appointment scheme, three years’ limitation after attaining majority was prescribed. The minor son made an application beyond the stipulated time. The High Court’s interpretation of the phrase “three years time for making such request in case of minors” as “in case of minors the period of three. years would be applicable from the date he becomes majOI" Was set aside by the Supreme Court on challeiigs. The Supreme Court held that if the family members of the deceased employee can manage for 14 years after his death) one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though. it is line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance; The whole object of any compassionate appointment gcheme is to give gixccor to thg family to tide ova the sudden fmalicial cn’sis biafallsn th<a dependanw on accmmt 0f tha untimely {Emisa 0f its sole earning mamber. 5. The Suprema Court in thci sass of Stata ei‘ J & §£ am! ethera ¥s= $ajad Akma Mk! {{2G06) 5 S.C.C. 766 }, 1'11 para 11 has heid as under :- to if" “11... 1t is that Sud), an appamtnmnt is an. excaptian tha geaei‘al {1116. Noxmally, arx €mp10yment in thg Govemment Gr ofh€r 1311h1i€ sactors shmald he apen to all €1igibl€ candidatas who can come fomard to amaly and comoote with. aach other‘ It is; in consonance with Artide 14 of the Consiitmjon. On tho .basis of compotitivo mexits, an appointment should be made to pumic omco. This general rule should 11m be departed from except where compellizig circumstances ikmand, such as, death of the sole bx’eadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the sefback, Once it is froved that in epite of the death of the hreadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is 11o necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal mile of appointment 311d to Show favour to orie at the cost of the interests of several othere ignoring the mamiate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 6. As a iesult, for the reasons made herein above 3116 the dicta laid R down by the Suigreme Com't, this petitioe is dismissed. No oi‘der as to costs. Sd/- K. Agnihotn‘g Satish Thaimi' Judge