i.ra OUiL •fty:! ^^.^- C f-^f^Q^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No£3^ /2006. PETITIONER ^^ ...••^^p'" \^..-<fs-''" ..-• ^e^"^ si'.^;;'(...--"" € ^ ..-••".,c^^>'" ^•••'^-•o'1' ^ Ashish Kumar Dewangan, S/o. late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Dewangan, aged about 23 years, R/o. Village Tikari, Post Arjunda, Tah. Gunderdehi, District Durg (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1) ./ tO^ ,0 ^^ s>' ^^f y<y .^^y ^^. ^ z • ^ V 2) 3) 4) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Department of Agriculture Mantralay, D. K. S. Bhawan, RaipUF(C.G.). The Director Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil and District RaipUF (C. G.). Deputy DiFector, Agriculture, Durg Tahsil and Distriet Durg (C.G.) The Collector Durg, Distpict DuFg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION (Sl UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench :Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prifinker Diwaker Writ Petition (SS No. 6354 of 2006 Ashish Kumar Dewangan Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & others. RESPONDENTS Mr. Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTiCLE 226 QF THE CONST!TUT!ON OF INDIA ORDER (24.08.2009) In this petition the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment, as his father Bhagwat Prasad Dewangan died on 16.8.1992 while he was working as Agricuitural Deve!opment Officer. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that at the time death of his father i.e. 16.8.1992, the petitioner was minor and therefore he couid not make any appiication seeking compassionate appointment, however, after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner filed an application for compasslonate appointment on 14.2.2006. He further submits that earlier also the petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 774/2006 seeking compassionate appointment and in the said petition tiberty was given to the petitioner to flle a detailed representation raising grievances before the competent authority along with a copy of the petition. It has been further argued on behalf of petitioner that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.2.2006 passed in W.P. No. 774/2006, petitioner had made a representation on 20.3.2006 but the same has also been rejected on 1 .5.2006 vide Annexure P-17. He further submits that this order is contrary to !aw. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that father of the petitioner died on 16.8.1992 and therefore under no circumstances he can be given compassionate appointment after lapse of so many years. It is the settled law that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and unless it is established by the petitioner that after the demise of the deceased empioyee the surviving family members are not in a position to pull any further in the absence of compassionate appointment to any one of the surviving dependents, the norma! rule of appointment should not be said a goodbye to. In the matter of Haryana State Electrlcity Board & Another vs. Hakim Sinah reoorted in H997) 8 SCC 85, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the whote object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the family to tlde over the sudden financlal crisis befallen the . dependents on account of untimely demise of its sole earning member. Further in the matter of State of Maniour vs. Md. fia@octeLreported in AIR 2003 SCW 4339, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death ofthe bread earner In the Family. For the reasons mentloned hereinabove, 1 do not find any iiiegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the State Government and the same are just, proper and do not warrant anyinterferenceofthisCourt. ~ ~—~— Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. „ . . Pritinker Diwakar Judge