^l^ T?^'^"iT? jT~, rilij-u. l^i^! rR.I' AT niu ^~s. i. Ass.s-j^' PETr iu Dl Gopa! Krishna Dl-miw S/o LateShri Aged about 23 years. R/o Village & Post Toiiatar Viock Bhatapara, A.'aiA^^-l 1. Tiie '.l*w i-'iu'ib.-i.S/l^iV* Vetenary & Aiiinial Husgaiidry Department, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur(C.G.) 2. State of Madliya Pradesh Tlirough - Secretary Vetenary & Aaimal Husbandr}' Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bfaopal (M.P.) 3. Collector, Raipur (Cliliattisgarh) 4. Deputy Direetor, Veteiiaiy & Aiiinial Husbaiidiy Department, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Uiiion of India Tiirough - Director, Traimng, Public Grievances & Ps Reorgariisation Cell) Lokiiayak Market, New Delhi. Persomiel !ension (State Shavaii, Kliaii B'SIT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTTrLTTION OF INDIA SB: K. Asniliotri, J. Presei-it; Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Sniita Ghai, Paiiel Lawyer for the State; respondent No. 1, 3 iiiri Naresh K. Sineh, Advocate forthe respondent No. 2. (Passed on 28'"" day of Mareh, 2008) With the consent of the parties. the matter is taken up fbr hearmg finalh'. Tlie case ofthe petitionsr is that tlie father ofthe petitioner working as Veterinan' Field Assistant in the ofSce of Deput\' Director, Veteririary and Aiiimal Husbandn.', Raipur, died in hamess on 14.07.1995. Tiie petitioner- bema minor at fhat point of time, could aot make an application for appomtmeru on compassionate basis. However, oa attainins the aee of maioritv, mads an applieation for appointment on --a. K-l 2. 4. compassionate basis. The date ofbirth ofthe petitioner, according to the mark-sheet (Aimexure P./2) is 28.07.1983. According to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the petitoner gttaiaed the aee ofmajority on 28.07.2001. Thereafter, after a period of about one year and two months, the petitioner made an application for compassioaate appomtment on 07.09.2002. Leamed counsel appeanng for the petitioner submits that the is entitled to grant of compassionate appointment after he attained the age ofmajority. The circular dated 2 February, 2006 was pointed out by the respondents wherein it was cleariy prescribed that the member of the deceased empioyee should make aa application for compassionate appointment v/ithin a period ofsix months. I,eamed coursel appearins for the respondents submit that the puroose of the coDipassior»ate appoirrtment is to provide relief and succor immediately to the dependants of the family. lu the present case, the family survived for about 7 years before filing tiie application. Thus, the appointment cannot be a-anted as it is not a regular method of appointment but is a back door entry, which is contrary to the constitutional scherae of employment. The petitioner has filed this petition with unexplamed and inordinate latches and delay seekiag a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment. Iii Haryana State Electficity Board and another Vs. Hakim Smgk the Supreme Court held tbat "the whole object of aay compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden fmancial crisis betallsn the dependests on account of the untimely demise ofits sole eaming member." •~ 1 K3/ The Supreme Court in the case of State ofJ & K and others Vs. Saiad AhmedMir^, in para 1 1 has held as under: "ll.......it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rute. Noniially, aa smployment in the Govemment or other public sectors shouid be opeii to all eligible candidates who can come forward to applv and complete with each othei'. It is in consoaance with Article 14 of tfae Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appoiittmeat should not be departed from except wfaere compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread wimier, fhe faniily survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Qiiee it is proved that iiispite of the death of fhe breadwiimer, the family survived aad substantial period is ovei', tfaere is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the riormal rule ofappointment aad to show favour to one at the eost.of the interests of several otliers ienoring the maadate of Article 14 of the Constitiitioa." Applying the well settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case (supra) to the facts ofthe case and ia view of reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petitioa is dismissed smmnarily. YNo order as to costs. 1. (1997) 8 SCC 85 2. (2006) 5 SCC 766 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Aanit