/ \ \J\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.6074 OF 2008 (Writ Petition underArticIe 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 23rd day of February, 201 1) é" 25 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17—1~2008 (Annexure P/1) whereby the application of the petitioner for consideration for appointment on the basis of compassionate\appointment, was rejected on the ground that the application was preferred after six months of death of the deceased employee. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sUbmits that father of the petitioner namely; Madhuker Rao (since deceased) while working as Assistant Grade — ll died in harness on 29—10—2003. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately made an application within a. period of six months on 28-1-2004. The application of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner was not major on the date of making application. Thereafter, one more application was made on 4—5-2006, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 17-1-2008 on the ground that the same was not filed by the petitioner within time i.e. six months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the well settled principles of law. ln support of his contention, Shri Shrivastava placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Akash Mishra‘ v. State of Chhatfisgarh & Others1, wherein this Court allowed the petition, which is identical to that of present petition. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not controvert the factual aspects of the case and submits that this matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Akash Mishra (supra). f WP (S) No.3976 of 2010 (decided on 20-1-201 1) a? \ PETITIONER Hitesh Rao Versus RESPONDENT The State Government of Chhattisgarh Gowri 2 (2006) 9 scc 195 341997) s scc 85 5. The Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and Othersz is as under:- “5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he‘was 13 years’ old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given utie' by the authorities was incorrect as at the time c64/ of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no ( ( specific provisions as to what would be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application." 6. This is not a case where the age and qualification has been fixed in the advertisement for selection in regular course of employment. The consideration for grant of compassionate appointment is altogether different. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain (supra) where the facts are almost same. 7. 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 ultimately demise .of its sold earning members (See: Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Sing/73 ). t 8. In view of the above, the order dated 17—1—2008 (Annexure — P/1) is quashed. However, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the application dated 4—5-2006 filed by the petitioner, treating the same within time, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sdl- tri i Satish K- Agniho Judge