:Tt^ ^ii'i-iS-.-jsa'^g,* -^l- ^ f^° R ^- t fr ^ (B- * i " £^.fc r:^ iwtj ,ij! ^jj to li M- l«r &— 1001 'l- tT! wssSsisssfs^s^^T;. h- X>3t KSOt !&y rrw ^ fe -& S -B ^ ^€- K&ot WI<M . »SSKW xaot EM M ST U3 W V3W JOOt ]jpo( 1• » U3 1 da 1 o \^"\' fOOty ty ^te-s fe .te- .c;- s° g" ^ i& ^ !& jij- 'j- /te- {is /f 'lr- S3 P5 K3UI ((SQ< (oot cj ro it=>o< loast ioat ED Tf c^ cy Ji. j? y SCMM (CTOt »?0t ^B g i'ffiT a- t® @g E9 R (Er 1ns f^ f re f lOOt f3 >sso< T f& hro R te. trB JCT £ y p: fl— By rr 1- B 1& (p r 4- •te T »c-o< N >aot cy »« *r~ .Is"' i Fl1 l^ ,.M/-'n (' ^- C'- ; jBi^- .— CGORTOF JUDICATURB CHHATnSOARH: EILASPUR Sia^e Bench: Hoa'Me Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. P.{SlMo. 2826of^X?S Petitioner : Surendia Kumar Markadey Versus Respondent : State ofM.P. (Now Chtaattisgarh) & ofhers ".'.--^ Shri M. K. Sinha, Advocate for the petitiouer. Sint. Anju Ahuja, Govt. Advocate for the rcspondents. this 12th I. The father ofthe petitioner uainefy Shri Raai Prasad Markaudey was working as Peon in the ofSce of the respondent No.4 Assistant Coininissiouer, Tribal Developinent, Durg, when he died on 30.1.1993 in hamess. The petitioaer, being dependent legal heir of the deceased employee sought for compassionate appoiatnient. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Durg after havnij considercd fhe facts of fhc case, particularly fhe peaurious condition ofthe deceased appointed the petitioner vide oider dated 29.5.199E (Annexure A/2) on the post ofPeon, on regular basis, in fhe pay scafe ofRs. 2550-55-2660. 3. The petitiouer has filed fhis petition seeking a difed i^spondents fhat in view of the qualification possessed petitioner, he be appoiated on the post of Lower Divis (L.D.C.l, ^-^: to flit by tiie Clerk ^ 4. Be fhat as it may, the compassionate appouilinent is not granted as a inatter of right but tliis is to piovide succor to fainfly to tide over financial crisis. 5. It is weU settled fhat fhe appointiaent on coiapassionate ground is not a uiethod of rccnutnient, but, is a facffity to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the famfly iii distress for relieving the dependeut faiaBy laenibers of the deceased employee from. destitution. In ofher woids, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious famfly to tide over the sudder 'Qnancial crisis is not to provide employment. It is also weU settled that mere death of the eraployee does not entitte his fainily to claim. corapassionate appointnient if the faoiBy inenibers could sustain them.selves financiaBy froin other sources ofiacoine. 6. In Ete Boar' ifcs. ISfeAJ ((1997) 8 SCC 85 } the S-upreme Court held fliat "the whole object of any conipassiouate appoin.tineiit scheine is to give succor to the famfly to tide over the sudden fuiancial crisis befaUen the depeudeuts oii account offhe uutunely deniise ofits sote eanung ineniber. 7. The Supreme Court in fhe case of of J & K Vs. Mir { (2006) 5 S.C.C. 766 }, m pai-a 11 has held as uiider ;- '"ll,.,.........it is fhat such au appotatm.ent is an exception to the geueral rule. NormaUy, au employment iu ttie Govemiaeut or other public sectors shoiikl be open to aB eligible candidates who can conie forwanl to apply and coiupete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of fhe Constitution. On the basis of competitwe merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed froin except where coinpeUing cux'umstance.s deinaiid, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because ofthe setback. Once it is proved fhat in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the fanailv survived and substantial period is over, ftiere is no necessity to sav "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointmeiit and to sliow favour to oae at fhe cost of the iuteicsts of seveial others Enoring fhe niaiide.te ofArticle 14 offhe Coustitution." R Eu view of fhe above setfled principles of law there is no merit in fhis petition. The petition is acconlingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agniiiotn Judge