E/VV@ w wjkk MADHE’A PRADES‘H IaDMINIQ 'tEALIVE ’PQT BU‘ifATJ PRINCIPAL > LENC"! l-k‘T‘ JABALE’ ‘ *7 C ( / BETI’IEEN Kimari Krisahna Tiwari Emaghtar 0f Shri Damm Tiwax‘i; ageti abaut. 24. yea. a waaxr‘lcing as Pam in Pgblia Warka D&%§)e~.r*czxzgnta Raigarh Circlg ‘Eiaigmsh (may ’ AEPLECANT §ND E‘he $~tate 0f Madhya Pradesma through the gearetary Da§armeiat. e£ PewgDu ‘V&1labh Bhawan‘ BHOPAL *‘heChief mgineer (Eaaw Pamm Raipur ma’mya Pr dew“ ’ “ Pm Sup&i%:imt§nding Eugmeaxg gm Raigarh Cix‘cleg Raigar‘n (MP): x RESPONDWTS DETAZLS OF APPLECAON TE 3' artculars: m? te Agmliémt a Ei h c A5 Estaiiea in the Ce Title mve am as yartimtlars cw the Rewondents s A ue e m*s s atémed in the; Cas Titl am ‘3 rarg 0? t a ginw w uam a Tina a m a anst rh £Qowin (mawm : amn ls mde agi kra ilcx 1 5% Paticul " he réer aa high the licatian is maée ‘ ”ubjact inatter in bripf fser e éth ‘‘ $ A‘ th ea of ‘ lan mmther W 1 s was emlmm me &maict°s , m e ha in pay a lca‘t was inted as Pea a mpagsnaa ground a he rcaazr dat 1 190 igued by he ta 0 M3ya Pgad gtates tht; pgont apaitmm a mer 0 tce haved fl oula gran‘f pe ' the ehgiity aim aducapial q&li£icat01 enmzv \ r UQ Q N ’’’’’’ a 1m PdaDw we annln anm a rl n rogit m Cil ea :15 Q s t Stp r a<h e¢n a comasiae pnt m anb f h ar aMLy w be wd as r im¢ on nin 6% e AH? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1425 of 2005 Peu'tioner Kumari Krishna Tiwan' Versus Respondents The Stats of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) 8r. othsm Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. mihotri, J. Shxi Shashank Thakur, Advocats for the petitionsr. Shri N. N . Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. o R D E R (oral) (Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2009) Heard. . The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a wn't of mandamus against the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on compassionate basis. The indisputable, brief facts are that the mother of the petitioner While working as Peon in the Public Works Department (FWD) died on 25.6.1988 in harness. The petitioner being dependent on the deceased Smt. Shiv Kumali, tiled an application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Peon by order dated 30.7.1991 (Annexure P/6). The petitioner has prefexred this petition on the sole ground that having regard to the qualification obtained by the petitioner i.e. the post-graduation in Sociology, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as LDC, not as Peon. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an Original Application before OJ the State Administrative Tribunal, as it was then in existence. The State Administrative Tribunal by order dated 2.12.1996 issued notice. On dissolution of the State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court zand renumbered as W.P. (S) No. 1425/2005. The respondents] State has not chosen to tile any return. However, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents] State submits that this is for the employer to grant compassionate appointlnent on the post of L.D.C. or Peon, depending on the facts of the caset He further submits that the circular dated 15. 1.1990(Annexure P17) is not mandatory but the same are mere guidelines. Be Ehat as it may the law on compassionatc appointment is ve1y clear. Th6 appointmcnt on compassionate basis has been held by a catena of decisions as a backdoor entry. Compassionate appointment depends on the'availability of the posts and other considerations. It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden fmancial crisis and is not to provide employment. . It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family in claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. The principle of law on the compassionate appointment is well settled. The compassionate appointment is granted only in the event, if an employee dies in harness and on account of sudden death, the dependent family has become penurious on sudden demise of the bread earner of the family. The compassionate appointment itself is a backdoor entry. lt is a departure nom the general rule of employment, as provided under the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate basis is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment but in order to sub—serve the above stated purpose. This provision has been made under the Rules framed by the State Government. (see Commissioner of Public Instrucuons and others vs. KR. Vishwanathl, State of J & K and others vs. Sqiad Ahmed Mira, National Institute of’l‘echnology and others Vs. Nirai Kumar Singbi} . . The further contention'of the petin'oner is that two other similarly situated persons have bgen appointed on the post of L.D.C., as is evident from‘the order dated 14.7.1994 (Annexure P/ 13) and the order dated 21.7.1995 (Annexure 413/214). This amounts to discrimination as the petitioner also possesses the same qualification. Though the State/Respondents haye not chosen'to put forward any facts, despite pendency of this case ford the last ten years, the claim of the 1 (2005) 7 sec 206 2 (2006) 5 scc 766 3‘t2007) 2 soc 481 Thaku: Sd/- 4‘ Satish K Agnjho H Judge requires consideration by the State auth Accordingly, on'ties. m