PETIONER IT / Sultana Begum D/o Late T. an, aged about 29 years. R/o Nawagarh, - Distt. Durg [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS , 1] /2) 4’ / 00’ /31 \ \gwe‘ eyéif 0 ‘ 3 ’ The State of C G t§&ough the Secretary General Adm1n1strat10n Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur District Collector Distt. Baster (C.G.) District Statistics Officer Jagdalpur Distt. Baster (C.G.) Officer Incharge. District Office [Finance Branch], Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster, [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE £26 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. han Kh k HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2639 OF 2006 Versus The State of C.G. & Others (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 22m day of September. 2009) 1) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) Case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner namely; T. iKhan working as Statistical Officer in the office of the respondents No.2 & 3, died on 7-10-1990 in harness, as is evident from the death certificate (Annexure P/1). According to the petitioner, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment. Consequent thereupon the Collector, District Bastar by order dated 64-2000 (Annexure — P/3) passed an order directing to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis within a period of one week, but the petitioner could not be appointed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid non—action, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.6568 of 2005 (Sultana Begum vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), Vide order dated 3-1-2006 (Annexure -— P/5), this Court having considered all the aspects of the matter granted liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed PETlTlONER Sultana Begum RESPONDENT k1 {epresenta’zion be‘fore me cancemed auiharities Le. respcndenis No.3 & 4 therein. F: was furtha directed ‘zhat the representation cf “the :ae’t'iiioner wouid be decided on mef§ts in acccrdance with §aw as eariy as possébie preferabty wiihin ENG manths fram the date cf receip‘t of the Irepresentation. Acccrdingw! the {epresentatien was ‘med by the petmoeer on 12—1 -2066 (Annexufe 41%}. The District Pianning and $iatisticai Officei, District Easter ceesidered ihe iepresenieiion aed passed a detaiied order datee 28-2-2396 (Annexure - PI?) wherein it was cieariy mentioned that since the mother of the petiiiener was aireaey werking a3 ANM. in Heaiith Cenire, Nevegarh, Esme: Durg, the peiiiienei was mt eeti‘iied to aepoinimeni en compassionate basis. Thus, this petition. 5) i have heatd ieamed ceunsei appeariog fer the parties, perused the pteadings and the ciocuments eppeoded thereto. Ciause 8 (8) of t‘ne circuiar dated “Ls-2003' issueo by the Generai ien-Department, Government of Chhattisgarh provides m as under : “6(a)aattrftmrnwm§mmai— aarétwm‘iti 6) Be that as it may, it is weii settied principie of iaw that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but ie a faciiity to provide for immediate rehabiiitation of the famiiy in distress for reiieving the dependent tamiiy members of the deceased empioyee from a , @ destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. 7) In Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh1 the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning members," ln State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin2 the Supreme Court, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under : "11. ln Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of lndia and Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death-of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and. when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit.'The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of lndia and ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 689) and Union of lndia and ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particutar post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that 1 (1997) 8 soc 85 2 AIR 2003 scw 4339 provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduiy interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision .to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision." 6) The Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir3, in para 11 has held as under: ”11 ....... it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come fonNard to apply and complete with each other. lt is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” Applying well settled principle of Iawrto the facts of the case and also the fact that the wife of the deceased T. Khan, who is working as A.N.M. at Health Centre Nawagarh, District Durg, granting appointment on compassionate basis to the petitioner would defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment. In view of foregoing, there is no merit in this case. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. No order asto costs. Gowri 3 2006 (5) scc 766 Satish K. Agnihotri