anéat tram; (W) wK mzoo Wrii ?etiiian is {in m 5 ,3 Earl §.1 12%3g M1" Dlmamua alum Mr. M.P.. . .BhaUa. DV Mr. SK. Ber dial/respondent No. 6. T11 1 .1 1e §hi af we Céng' mtim‘2 c mmi‘i'a Eighra, J: counsel for i116 petitioner. GA for ths State. Staliding CounSei of for U11i011 A. ® m” mawm amméam mmméaama mmziwm $W 311%21 E’“"?X%}§EE $a11a‘c Kumar Yadav, Sic Late. Chandrlka Vadaig, aged abaut 2‘5 veam, R/o Ward No.2 T‘ajle‘hh Nagar Takhatpm‘, District Bilaspur my Vamug RESFGHBEET 1. State of Chhattlsg h. JroLgh the Seuetaxy, Public Woks _;€pal‘{31€11t, DKS Bhawan. Raipur (CG) 3 T116 Su‘ 1"}t6n em t‘rggma. Pubhg \Nm‘ks Departinert B11a‘13ru [Cm ’3 Ex-(icutve Enginaer; Public Works Dapartment ambhag NO. 1, Bilaspur (CG, 4., S‘b Eli/Elena} Officm‘ Public “forks D a1 L mint, L113 Samhhaa No ? Bu 11“ (CG) 5, Sr‘w 3; Madn‘va Dradegh. ’T‘hrougil The Sscret; Pumhc We; 3 Dejwal talent, Vallabh Bhaiva. ; Jiopai; Dish 1ct Bhopal (MP) 6. Union 3 I c a. 1 nuuJl The cm Scc1eL2u ‘ ‘«:.ne:1t f P mnal T1aml10 and Pvhhc 1CG$ uhaStn Bfal g, L “W Delhl mm mm'ai mam (W) , 31mm! fém'm a2“ anéerm Emmi 111% 311w Z The petitioner has filed the instant petition for direction to the respondents to gant him compassionate appointment with the averment that father of the petitioner late Chandrika Yadav ’ was Working as Time Keeper with the respondents, who died on 16.6. 1989 while in empl Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the petitioner was aged only on year at the time of incident, he could not apply for compassiona e appointment after the death of his father. However, after a ' the age of majority, he moved an application on 16.7.2004 (Annexure P/2) for compassionate appointment along with P73). Heard on admission. ent under the respondents. certificates/mark~sheets (Annexure Thereafter, the pe itioner made many representations (Annexure P/4) before the appointing authority, but the same were not considered and l ‘s representation of Annexure P/4 is still undecided. Heard learned counse for the petitioner. It is settled law, as h s been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N anal Institute of Technology and others Vs. Niraj Kumar S ngh, reported in (20077 2 SCC 481, o e t g W §HT$V vi zoo - éee.€!.§2.awsz.’.ém?/.e§z}.; WMW (W) msrzmW av." 311221 Emmi mmwmm mmm anéel 3 $ an?“ any particular scheme framed. by the employer in this regard. The purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to grant i111mediate relief to the family members, Whose sole breadwinner has died in harness; with a View to nic distress from the loss of the that all pub1ic appointmen s must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of I dia. Exceptions carved out therefore are the cases Where appoin Inents are to be given to the Widow or the dependent Children o the employee who died 1n harness. Such an exception is carve out with a View to see that the family of the deceased‘employee who has died in harness does not become a destitute. The a pointment on compassionate ground can be granted only under relieve them from econOJ breadwinner. In the instant case, f2 1989,, appointment on con: been offered only to his w: pleadings of the petitionen fie was only one year old at the time of death of his father, therefore, he could not be given any appointment on compassiOJ late ground. In these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for direction to the respondents to of the death grant hinl compassionate appointment after 19 years of his father cannot be acceded to. ii ,\ Lther of the petitioner died in the year passionate ground, thus, could have .dow or the dependent child. As per 11mm mm'ai .Wngéia N9 .'. . g//.?,40. S3 vi 200 311%31 m (W) mew!W awnmwm WW§WW $31%w3né31 - mmWma ‘ 4, In the result, the petition being Without any substance deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itsel f. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge