HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Eetition No.4097l2000 CORAM: Horx'b!e Shti SR. Nayak, CJ & Hon’ble Shri Dilipv Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Sudeep Chatteriee. S/o Late Shyama Pad Chatterjee. R/o Baikunthpur, Districi Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh Versus Petitioner RDA Buiiding, Kachheri Chdwk, Raipur, 2. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: 1. The State Administrative Tribunai. Raipur w k Respondents Bench, Through: its Additionai‘Registrar, Madhya Pradesh. The Secvetary, Schooi Education Depanment, Ministiy of Schooi Education. Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 3. The Director, Public instructions, satpura Bhawan, Bhopai, Madhya Pradesh. The Dy. Director. Education Department Education District, District Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh 5. The Collector, Tribai Welfare Department, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh Shri Vivek Ranian Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for State/respondents. ORAL ORDER y, (Passed _,__..Eh_..._ on 26 Jul 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by SIR.Nayak, The petitioner’s late elder sister Ku.Bani Chatteriee by name while working as Assistant Teacher in the Department of School Education died on 5.11.1978. The petitioner being ‘a brother of the deceased, sought ompassionate' ground in terms of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme framed yide Government Orders dated 10.6.1994 and 3.1 .1995. In response to it, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher purely on temporary basis and subiect to the condition that his services would be liable to be terminated at any time and Without notice to C.J. appointment on c him. ' 2. Whan the matter stood thus, the 4‘" respondent realizing that the mtitioner was wrongly appointed under the aforementioned Government Orders dated 10.6.1994 and 3.1.1995 and infect. he is not entitled for appointment in terms of those Government Orders, by his order dated 5.6.1998, terminated the services of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner instituted O.A. No. 78/1999 in the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench (for short the ‘Tribunal'). The Tribunal having opined that in terms of the GovernmentiOrder dated 3.1 .1995. the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground dismissed the Original Application No. 78/1999. by the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. In decision-making, the Tribunal also took note of the fact that the petitioner was appointed purely on adhoc/temporary basis with a condition that his services would be terminated at any time without any notice and since the termination order is termination simplicitor, the petitioner could not have any legal objection to the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. it was cotended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a brother.of the deceased teacher and since the deceased teacher did not leave any other relatives, is entitled to be appointed to a suitable post on a compassionate ground in terms of the Government Orders. lt was next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that before terminating the services of the petitioner that petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to have his say in the matter and therefore, the impugned termination order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and principles of natural justice. Per contra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State would contend that since under the Government Orders referred to above, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, the initial a¢pointment given to him did not vest any enforceable right on the petitioner, and therefore, giving him an opportunity before passing the impugned order wouid not arise. He would submit that since the termination order is simplicitor, it wouiid not ’cause any stigma to the petitioner to seek aiternative employment. Therefore, he would submit. the 4t" respondent did not give notice to the petitioner before terminating his services. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not hnd any weighty or substantive ground to interfere with the termination ordert as affirmed by the Tribunal. tt is welt settled that provisions of a Compassionate Appointment Scheme should strictly be construed. Unless the Scheme framed by a State employer providing for appointment on compassionate ground entitles a person to seek appointment under such Schemet Court cannot direct a $tate employer to give appointment to an ineligible person on compassionate ground. 6. We have pointedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out the provision in the aforementioned two Government Orders H V) dated 10.6.1994 and 3.1.1995 which enables the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate ground, and learned counsel for the l petitioner would draw our attention to clause 17 of the Government order dated 10.6.1994 which reads as foliows: 'gneneahuewahmmwangmgamgdi méWW$mneianraemmW l eiarmd$i§ninmaeinienait§mrstw%dg meemmmemneemmm mwm,wmémmwiQmWm manuwiwmeimr ‘ ,4, Clause 17 of Government Order dated 10.6.1994 only provides that in case of a Government servant dying in harness leaving a widow and children and the children so left behind him are not eligible to seek appointment on compassionate ground and the widow is also unable to accept the appointment on compassionate ground, the widow of the deceased employee can nominate a close relative for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground if such relative undertakes to look after the widow. 7. We are at a loss to understand how that clause would enable the i petitioner to claim appointment on compassionate ground. Except Clause-1 7, it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under any other Clause of Government orders dated 10.6.1994 or 3.1 .1995. ln that view of the matter. we cannot take any exception to the impugned order dated 15.2000 of the Tribunal. 8. This petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. sw- / / i: s‘“ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh; - l . Judge I l r l ‘