’EvE‘ l i l l ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI5GARH AT BILASPUR W14? Pe'rmon Nc‘ 1433 of 20$5 Pefi‘rioner- Rajsh Kumar Bhardwqj, S/o Lafe Shri Sampaf Singh, aged abouf 33 year's, originaily appoinfed on fhe posf of regular fares? guard, presem‘ly working ’as daily wages iabour on voucher payment residenf of SargE Pal Para, Kondagaon, Disfricf Basfar (CG) Versus ' Respondenfs 1. Sfa‘fe of Chhafi'isgarh, Secrefary, Depar‘rmen’r of Forest D.K.S. Buildin9, Raipur (C6) 2. Conservafor of Faresf, Kanker Circle, Kanker (CG) 3. Colleclor, Basfar Disfric? Basfar (Cé) 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kondagaon (Produc‘lion) Division, Kondagaon (CG) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ Single Bench: Hon‘ble Mr. $afish K. Agnihofri, J. Shri R. N. Pandey, Advocate for the peiifioner. Shri Arun Sac, Govt Advoca‘re for the respondenis. O R' D E R (Pawed on fhis 19’“ Day of March, 2009) 1. The pe‘rii‘ioner, by This pefifian, seeks f0 challenge fhe order dated 30.9.1994 (Annexure P/7), passed by fhe respondent No.2, whereby the compassiona‘le appointmenf of The pefifioner on The posi' of unfrained Fores‘rer was cancelled. 2. According +0 iearned counsel appearing for fhe pefi‘lioner, fhe father of fhe pe‘iifioner Iafe 5ampaf Singh was working as Deputy Ranger in fhe Fares? Depor‘imenf, who offer a‘Haining ’rhe age of superannuation, refired on 31.1.1991. Thereafi-er, he died on 1.3.1991. As such, as per fhe policy 1'he pei‘ifioner ought 1'0 have been appoinfed on compassionate basis wi‘lhouf following fhe selec'l‘ion process. Learned counsel fur'iher submifs fha‘l‘ on the basis of The Memo No. 714/381/F (3)/72, daTed 7.11.1972, issued by The Finance DeparTmenT, General AdminisTraT-ion DeparTmenT, The STaTe of Madhya Pradesh, vide Memo No. F—3—5/75/3/1, da‘l'ed 24w March, 1975, fhe pefi'l'ioner' is enfi‘l‘ied 1‘0 appoinfmenf wi'l‘houf foilowing the selecfion process as his fafher died wHhin fhr'ee year's of his refir-emenf. Accordingly, fhe pefifioner‘ was appoinfed on 23.7.1994 (Annexure P/3) by The Divisional Fares? Officer, Kondagaon (Production), Foresi Division, Kondagaon, sfai’ing fhaf fhe peiifioner was appoinfed on compassionate basis on +he pay scaie of Rs. 825- 15-900-20-1220. This order- was reviewed by ihe some Divisional Foresf Officer on 30.9.1994 (Annexure P/7), as if was found fhaf +he appoinfmen‘i' of fhe pefi'i'ioner on compassionafe basis was nof in accordance with the policy for compassionafe appoin'i'menf as fhere is no policy fo appoini' dependenf of re’rired persons on compassiona‘le basis. . Ii is well selfled principle of law fhaf any circular or direction providing for appoinfmeni' of a person wifhouf selec‘iion process is violafive of Arficles 14 . and 16 of fhe Consfi‘l-u‘l'ion of India. Thus, fhe appoinfmen‘i of fhe pefifioncr was righfly cancelled wifhin fwo monl’hs. . The principle of law on fhe compassiona'ie appoini‘menl is well se‘li'led. The compossional'e appoinfrneni' is granfed only in The eveni, if an employee dies in harness and on accoun‘l' of sudden deoih, 1'he dependeni' family has become penurious on sudden demise of fhe bread earner of ihe family. The compassionate appoinfmeni ifself is a backdoor enfry. IT is a deparfure from ihe general rule of employment as provided under The provisions of Ari'icle 14‘ and 16 of ‘l'he Cons‘lifu‘l‘ion of India. The oppoinfmenf on compassiona‘ie basis is no? in accordance wifh The cons‘rifu‘lional scheme ofemploymem‘ bui‘ in ' order ‘l'o sub-serve fhe above sfa‘l'edpurpose. . I’r is well se'H'led fhaf ’rhe appoin‘rmen‘l- on compassionai-e ground is noi- a me‘l'hod of recrui'l'men'l, bu‘l‘, is a facili‘l‘y ‘l'o provide for immediai‘e rehabili‘lo‘l‘ion of ‘lhe family in disfress for relieving ‘i’he dependenf family members of The deceased employee from desTiTuTion. In ofher words, The objecT of compassionaTe appoinTmenT is ‘l'o enable penurious family To Tide over The sudden financial crisis and is noT To provide employment IT is 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 financially from oTher sources of income. Thakur- Learned counsel appearing for fhé pefi‘rioner nex‘l' submi'rs 1ha+ fhe other persons, who were appoin‘l‘ed, subsaquenfiy, on daily wages, have been gran‘ted some compensa'ror-y monefar'y benefifs. Be fhm as if may, The petitioner has no righf To fhe compensafion or monefary benefi‘i‘s on compassionafe basis offer refiremenf of his fafher. The appoin’rmenf of fhe pefitioner was made depriving fhe similarly sHua‘red persons who have been wai‘l'ing for appoin‘l‘menf fhrough compe+ifive selecfion process. The pe‘l‘i‘l‘ioner was appoinfed de hors fhe consfifufiona! scheme, wi‘rhou’r invi‘ring fhe eligible persons for seled-ion. Thus, fhe appoinfmen‘r of The pefi'rioner was ilIegal which was righHy quashed, subsequenfly. . In view of ‘i'he foregoing fhere is no merif in fhis case. The ,pe'i'i‘i’ion is. accordingly dismissed.‘ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge