7ITf^T^Tf ^^ •^ss<iic{<{ y^<y41i^ Rssis^^ ("&o'ITo) ^Sf£(4»lWW^ 350Q/2Q04 ^tS^<t?^ 7iK^, ^ra 22 ^ -3TR^j| ^ ^vS^M ^T^, f^RRft ^ -T^ 40 ^t-^T ?t^er ^ qre *i^e} f^i? ^ IR <^ xft® w^rrT^, ^i^-i!^<au*4 f^T"?r ^y^T-rf^rra (^o^ro) f^s yf?raT^t3T(3T : I- ^-^H^^^ ^TRf-r, g7?r-^^ ^ff^ ^(fw^ f^'mpr ^to^o^eo •F T. WI^Z ^0^9 2 Bra^^. WR?^t7i ^l?i ^rm ^^-i ^rpFJt ^R^^ wft^? ^ ^. ^raqL<? (^O^TO) 3- ^T? Pi^4? 'm^r^N ^bi ^1[mcp?/ ^S^^^^M ^Q^ro} ^if^y^i^pf^ 3^^^ 226/227 'WR? ^?T 1gf^m-I rSB; Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. AffmJiotri. .L) Present : Smt Resiu Kochar, Advocate forthe petitionei\ Shili Alok Bakhshi, Govl. Aclvocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passeu 01119ul ofMaidi, 2008) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is takeii up for hearing finally. 2. The petitio?ier by this petition, ^eeks a direction to the respoiideiits that the respondeiits be directed to appomt the petitioiier 011 compassionate basis. 3. The fects, in niitehei! are that the father ofthe petjtioner Shri Surajbhan Yadav^ while workmg as Junior Compositor m GQ\± Regional Printmi Press, R.ajiiaiidgaoii, died m hamess 01108.08.96 (Aimexiire A/l). 4; The petitioner has made an application on 13»09.98 (Aitiiexiire A/4) to the respondeiit authorities for compassionate appomtment. The application of the petitioner was rejected by letter dated 10.01.2000 (Aimexiire A//8) on the groimd that the petitioner camiot be appomted osi compassionate groimd on e.ccount ofiion availability ofpost. It was fiirther stated m the said letter that if the petitioner is mtendmg to accept appointmeiit in some other department, he may submit his consent- 5. On 08.06.01, the Deputy Collector, fbr the Collector, Rajiiandgaori, wrote a ietter to the Deputy Comptroller Goveniment p.egiona! Press, Raiiiandgaon to consider the appiication ofthe petiti<mer expeditiously. 6. Be that as it may, admittedly the petitioner's father iiameiy Siiri Surajbhan Yadav died on 08.08.96. According to circular dated 02.02.2006, al! the legal heirs/dependeiits of the deceased employee, who died after 01.11.1997, can be considered for compassioiiate appomtment In the present case, father ofthe petitioner died on 08.08.96, thus, the petitioner's claim camiot be coiisidered. 7. The purpose of compassiosiate appointmeiit is to provide for iimiiediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent famiiy members of the deceased employee from destitiitioii. In other words, the object of compassi<Miafe appointment is to enable peniirious family to tide over the siidden finaiieial crisis and is nct to pro^ide empioyment. It is also well settled that mere death ofthe employee does not eiititle his famity to claim compassi<^nate appointment if the famity members coiiid siistam themselves financialty from the othcir soiirce^ ofincome. The petitioner has sustamed himselffor about 12 years. 8. It is well setfled that the compassionate appomtment is not in accordance with the constitutioiial scheme ofemploymeiit and is a back-door entry. 9. The Supreme Court m the case of State of J& K and others Vs. Sajad Aimed Mir ((2006) 5 SCC 766}, para 11 has held as under: "ll<...^it is that such an appomtment is an exception to the genera! mle. Nomialiy, an employment m the Govenmient or other pub!ic sectors should be open to all eligible caodidates who can come fbr^ard to appty and complete with each other. ft is m consonance with A-rticle 14 ofthe Constitutioii. On the basis of competitive nierits; an appoiiitmerrt shoiild swt be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread wimier, the family survived and the family sufFermg because ofthe setback- Once it is proved fhat inspite of the death ofthe breadwiimer, the family survived and substaiitial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the nomial mle ofappomtment aiid to show favour to one at the cost ofthe iiiterests ofseveral others ignoring the maiidate ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution." 10 In view ofthe above well settled prmciples oflaw, there is 110 merit m this Detition The netition is accordiiidv dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge