^F/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 1669 of2W PETITIONER Smt. Kaushilya Bai W/o Late Shri Bhola Ram Kunjain, aged about 41 years, Resident of Village Kohalakasa, Post Chiehola, Panchayat Madiyaa, Block Dongargarli, Disb-ict Rajnaiidgaon (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Secretary, School Edueation Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, 3. Di 4. Block Education t'Mficer, Block Safaaspur Lohara, WMT PETriTON DNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONS'mvnQN OF INDIA Present: Sfari Rakesh Anihonv, Advocate Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Paae] Lawyer for the State/respoadeats. (Passed on 06m day of August, 2008) This petition is filed by Smt. Kaushilya Bai, who is the wife of Late Shri Bhola Ram Kunjam. The husbaad of fhe petitioneT, w!rile working as Assistant Teacher at Govemment Primary Sehool, Kliolba, Block Safaaspur Lohara, District Kawardha, died oa 03.12.2000, inhamess. Tfae petitioner, .'¥•- being the dependant on the deceased employee, made an application on 01.10.2001 (Annexure P/5) for appomtnient on compassionate basis. Tbe application ofthe petitioner was rejected by the District Education after a period offive yeare on 26.05.2006 (Annexure P/6). 2. Sfari Rakesfa Anthony, leamed counsel appearmg tbr the petitioner mfl fhat it is iaeumbent upoa fhe Govemment to consider tfae case of fhe petitioner at the earliest as th.e purpose of eompassionate appointment is to provide succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen on account ofuntimely demise ofthe sole member. Shri Anthony further submits that the application was fi3ed in time, at fhe earliest. He Bi farther subnnts tfaat when Ifae first application dated 01.10.2001 was aot decided, the petitioner made one more application to the higher authorities on 7.12.2001. Since no decision 'vvse taken, the fhird application dated 8.12.2005 wasmade. 3. Shri P.KBhaduri, leamed Panel A-dvocate appearing fbr the State/respondents, per contra, submits Ihat the applicatioa offhe petitioner has been rejected not on merit, but on the ground of delay in filing the application. Shri Bhaduri has no explanation with regard to the fact as to why fhe State authorities have not taken any decision pursuant to fhe application dated 01.10.2001 (Annexure P/5) and have taken decision oriy pursuantto the subsequent applications dated 7.12.2001 or 8.12.2005. 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The relevant circular prevalem atthetime ofdeath ofthe deceased employee and filing ofthe application dated 01.10.2001 is cireular dated 01.05.2000, filed alongwith I.A. No. l, application for takins documents oa record. Clause-9 offhesaid circuiar provides that if no major dependent member is available in the family of the deceased employee, Ihe application can be made within a period of fhree years, where fhe minor dependent is likely to be major durins this period. In other cases, any application made after a period ofthree months may not be coasidered. Ths cireulars dated 10.6.2003 and 2 Fsbrjar}', 2006, reiied on by Shri Anthony is not relevant to tfae facts of tfae case as fhe deceased died on 03.12.2000 and the application was made in October, 2001. ' 5. In lidit of the above circulars, the petitioner's application vws not maintainable. However, the State authorities ought to have passed the order IT'-i .^": i"^ & 'WKS;Si 'ij g '•W-fik |s •u-:^r:" '"^ ^ \.^/ '^.Jt'l^' -3- rejecting the application, ifit was the case, wifhin the reasonable time as the purpose of granting of compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the fanrily at the earliest to tide over the financial difficulties faced by the dependents of the deceased employee. The application for compEussionate appointment may not be maintainable if tfie same is filed after three monttis, but fhe State authorities have also slept over fhe application for unusual lons time of more fhan five years. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that fhe applieation was made by a minor dependent member of the deceased employee. settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recmitment, but, is a facilily to provide for inunediate of the family in distress for reliving the dependeat family members ofthe deceased employee from destitution. la other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden fmancial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death ofthe employee does not entille fais faniily to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources ofincome. 7. Ifthe petitioner has no right to fhe post, he cannot claim infraetion ofri^tt and fhe same carmot be enlbrceable in writ petition under Articie 226 oftfae Constitution of India. Compassionate appointment itself is not a regular appointment, in accordance with law. It is a gratis and the petitioner caunot claim as a matter of right In a catena of dedsions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has hetd that the appomtment oa compassionate ground is a back door entrv, not in accordance with law. I ' °""% / t. 'w.-'"./ -4- 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State ofJ & K and others Vs. Safad Ahmed Mir^, 'm para 11 has held as under: "II..... ..it is that such an appointment is an exception to tiie geueral m.1e. Nomially, aii employment in tlie Goverament or other public sectQrs should be opento ail eligible candidates who caii eome foi-ward to apply and complete wifh each ofher. It is ia consonance with Articlc 14 of Ifae Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where conipelling circumstances demand, such as, death offhe sole bread winner, the faaiily survived and the faniily suffering because ofthe setback. Once it is proved that inspite offhe death oftlie hreadwimier, llie fanrily survived aiid substaiitial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye to the normal mle of appointment aiid to show favour to one at fhe cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate ofArtiele 14 oflhe Constittition." 9. Before parting with the decision, it is expedient that some observatioa be made with regard to the delay on the part of fhe officer eoncemed. The officer concemed passing the impugned order has not doae the needful expeditiously, as required under compassionate policy dated 1.5.2000, or otherwise, keeping in view the objeet of granting compassionate appointment. It is therefore, expected that the State Govemment may take appropriate action aeainst the concemed of&cer for not discharging his fanctions in accordance with law, on finding him delinqueat. Delay in deciding tfae application may cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. 10. In view ofthe above well settled principles of law, applying to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- ,. SatishK.Agnihotn -.Juage ^: , '(2006) 5 SCC 766