P. R. l\\lo ....... ......... 5 \ Presented‘by Shr :0 v dated........’...%<::k\..:...$x.= ................. .z‘, %§WJ ' gd o IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (sy No. éya éZ /2006 / PETITIONER . Vikas Soni, Son of Late Ram Murat Soni, aged about 28 years, resident of Sonarpara, Mahamai Ward, Tahasil— Mungeli, District—Bilaspur (C. G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Transport Department, Government of 'Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, ‘Raipur (C.G.). / 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, through Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Balabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Madhya Pradesh, State Road Transport Corporation, through General Manager (Karmik), Habibganj, Bhopal (M. P.) Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., (Transport Deptt.) through Chief Manager, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). a. r‘x—u—rl J; A .‘“ i g» (23 / 5. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., (Transport Deptt.) through Divisio Manager, Divisional Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.). / 6. Collector, Bilasur (C.G.) E OF WRIT/WRITS. DIRECTION [ DIRECTIONS ETC. M n p WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANC singie Bench: Hon’hle shri Satish K. Agihotri, J. 6/3 EEG}! CGURT QF JEIDXCATURE CHEATT!3GARH: BILASPUR w. P. (s: Na. 5245 ofzeos Petitioner : Vikas Soni Versua R€si3011dent : State of Chhattisgarh 85 0th€rs Mr, M.K. Sinha, Advocate for the patitioner. Miss Sunita Jain} Panel lawyer for the respondents! State. ORDER {Fassed on this 19th day of January, 2007} 1. Awarding ta learned counsel agwearing for the petitioner, the father of the petitioner namely Shri Ram Murat Soni, was. working as Bookiug Agent in the ohice of Sub-Depot, Muegeli under file Madhya Pradesh State Road Trahspoxi Corpoeation, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, when he glied on 19,2. 1996 in harness. 2. The petitioner, being dependant-legal hair of the deceased, made an application for appointment on compassionate basis‘ en 22.9.1§96 (Annexure Pl 10], The petitioner, it appears did not pursue the matter till the petitioner received a copy of the letter date Manager of the Iespondent No. 4, addressed to the Chief Manager]Resp011dent-Coiporation at Raipur. Thereafter, the petitioner was again sewed a communication vide letter dated 27.8.2004 (Annemre Pi 25) stating therein that there was no policy 24.8.2004 (Annexme P,’ 24) from the otiiee of the Regional /2/ ; to appsint ths dawndarltl family membm‘ of the deceasad employse wider Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Leanmd counSel appean'ng for tha y€tition€r has pointed out that as per ‘fhe poHcy data? 10th J1me, 1994 (Anneimre P/7), th€ §€titi6n€r was enfitled to appointment 011 compassionato basis. 4. Tho petitioner has tiled this petition seeking a direction to the respondents. to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in this petition, ,iiled on 12. 10.2006 with inmdinate delay. 5. It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is. not a method of recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehaoilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other wonis, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable pennrions family to tide over the sudden financim crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that meie death of the employee does. not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. 6. In Haryans state Electricity Board and another Vs. askim gingh {(1997} 8 SCC 85 } the Supreme Court held that “the Whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the. family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.” 7. The Snpreme Court in the case of State of J 85 K and others Vs. sajad Ahmd Mir {(2006) 5 soc. 766 }, in para 11 has held as under :~ . 2/ “11... 1t ' i5 that such an appointment is an exceptian to the general rule. NormaHy, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be opeii to all eligible candidates who can come. foxward to apply and compote with each other. It is in consonancc with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the baeis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public onice. This general nile should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffen’ng because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favom‘ to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Aiticle 14 o the Consh'tution.” E. In view of the above settled principles of law, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri 1 Judge a f