..a»S»»B' /^. ^'^ AF^ HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 5121 of2007 RESPONDENTS Kumar Nageiidra Diksena, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Murari Lal Diksena R/o village Dudga, Post Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretar}.', General Adnunistrative Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Cfahattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner, Aadim Jati, Anusuchit Jati, Pichada Varg Evam Aalp Sakyak Vikas Vibhag, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector (Tribal Development) Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5. Smt. Shail Kumari Sharma, W/o ofLate R.K. Sharma, office of Assistant Conimissioner, Tribal Development Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LNDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asautaoti-i. J.) ^ Present : Shri O.P. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER iffi 1. 2. (Passed on 19 day ofFebruary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearmg finaily. Tfae petitioner was granted compassionate appoihtment on the post ofPeon by order dated 22.07.2004 (Annexure-P/4) on death ofhis father namely, Murari Lal Diksena, who died on 25.02.2001, in hamess, while working as Assistant Teacher. Therea&er, the petitioner moved an application dated 05.08.2006 & 20.12.2006 (Annexure-P/7 colly.) before the respondent authorities and 3. 4. requested to grant regular appointment on the post of Assistant Grade III. According to leamed counsel appeai-ing for the petitioner, tfae said application is pending consideration before the respondent authorities. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused thepleadings and the doeumaits appended thereto. From the circular dated 1-5-2000 issued by the General Admmistration Department, Govermnent of Madhya Pradesh, it provides fliat compassionate appointment ean be graiited on the post of Shiksha Kanm only. The relevant portion ofthe said circular reads as under: "TR fuf-T TR W'iq?qT PlqRd ^t uff wMV ai^ipm Fl^Rd giT^%/girif^q>T STCT sirRcr qtT'craT ^ 3ff6TR TR ^iNt IT^ft ^ Rt-1ci*< IR •Ugl'ycb ^S-3 (P>T-T 4Ilft RlPi*). ltT&ll<b4f ^T •yq ^ ^R IR ^^"ff •U<6'f\ 1 " Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that flie appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitnient, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation ofthe family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In ofher words, fhe object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death ofthe employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment ifthe family members could sustain themselves finaacially from other sources ofincome. In the matter of Haryana State Eiectricity Board and another vs. Hakun Singh the Hon'ble Supreme Court he!d that "fhe whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over fhe sudden tinancial crisis befailen the dependants on aceoiuit ofthe untimely demise ofits sole eaming member." ' 2UU7 AlK. iiCW 6U6U L. ^-,- A The Supreme Court in fhe matter of State ofMampiu- vs. Md. Rajaodni, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under: "11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union oflndia 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 ofproviding appomtments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to deatfa of the bread-eamer ia the family. Such appomtments should, theretbre, be provided irmnediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no eroimd, unless the scheme itself envisage specifscally othei-wise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed wifhout any time conseiousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Ur.ion oflndia & Ors. {1991 Supp (2) SCC 689} and Union of India & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh {1995 (6) SCC 476}. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. {1998 (5) SCC 192}, it was observed fhat in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insisteace for a particular post. Out of purely humanitariaa consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of liveiihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one ofthe dependants ofthe deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employinent which is m fhe nature of aii exception to the general provisions does not unduly ititerfere with the right ofthose other persons who ai~e eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabiing appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the eeneral provisions it caimot 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." 7. In the matter of State of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mu-, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after having cogsidered all the aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 11 observed as under:- "ll......it is that such an appointinent is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment ia the Govermnent or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is m :2AIR.2003SCW4339 3 (2006)53cc 766 :-'' Sahu consonance with Article 14 ofthe Constitution. Onthe basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public ofKce. This genera! rule should not be departed from except where compellmg eircumstances demand, such as death ofthe sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family sufiering because offhe setback. Once it is proved fhat in spite ofthe death ofthe breadwinner, the faniily survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say goodbye" to the normal rule of appomtmeat and to show favour to one at fhe cost ofthe mterests of several ofhers ignoi'ing the mandate of Article 14 of the 8. Applying the weli settled principles oflaw to the facts oftiie case on haiid wherein after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was graated compassionate appointment on fhe post ofPeon and he has no right to claim that on any particular post, he should be given compassionate appomtment. He has no right to compassionate appoiiitment. Thus, the petitioner does not deserv'e any relief. The petition is being devoid of merit and sans any substaace. 9. In view ofthe foregoing, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ,—-—--—— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge