IN THE HIGH COURT OF dil-IA‘I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR W w.P. No. M£Cm/ PETITIONER amaganlal Yadav s/o Late Arjun Singh Yadav Village — Arod, Post Latabod, Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Versus a REsPONDENTs s (1) State of cnhattisgarh 3" Through the Secretary. School Education Department. Raipur. State of M.P. Through the Secretary School Education Department.Bhopal. ‘ 4w The Director, Education Department Pension Bare, Raipur (C.G.) (4) District Education Officer, Durg (Chhattisgarh) . v wRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 or THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . ijrheinartimgem-_i 7 v XI—HC—zz 16-1 2-2005 ' Shri A K Gupta Advocate for the petitioner. - Shri Sandeep Dubey. Govt. Advc cate for the State of Chhattisgarh. By this petition under Article 2g!6/227 of the Constitéition of India. the Brief‘facts are that the father of e petitioner was Assistant Teacher in Primary School who retired on medi l ground on 5/10/1985 and thereafter died on 1/8/1986. At the time of hi Heard. ipo‘i‘ntment. petitioner has sought compassionate a death the petitioner was minor Gn attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied for compassronate appointment in the year 1991 The s id application was rejected vide order dated 20/9/1 991 (Annexure—P/1) stat medical ground the petitioners father policy the petitioner is not entitled for the presentpetition was flied in the for such long delay. ent but merely. an exception to the on open invitation of application on death of the employee concerned his livelihood The obiect is to enable the reasonable explanation has beenoffe lt has to be remembered th t the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruit K merits Basic intention is that on th family is not deprived of the means o family to get over sudden financial cri ’ln Life Insurance Corggration (Mrs) and another reportedin 1.199: Courts cannot confer enediction im ng that at the time of retirement on s more than 50 years and under the ompassionate appointment. Thereafter. éom, which is highiy beiéted. No India VsfAsha Ramchhandra Ambekar H 2 SCC 718, it was’pointed out that pelled by'sympathetic consideration to. ‘iqieerae r y 5i r. o b a r XI—HC-ZZ ‘ make appointments on compassionate groundswhen the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and con1empiate suchappointments. in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs; Union of India and others reported in (1989i 4 SCC 46‘: it was observed that in all ciaims of appointment on‘ compassionate grourds, thereshould no§,be any deiay in appointment. The purpose of pfovidin appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to deat of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be pr vided’immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward as a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the Schem itself envisages specifically otherwise. to state that as an when such minor ecomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or'lim The above view was reiterated in the cases of Phool Wati (Smt) vs. ' . Union of India and Others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689 and Union of ‘ India and others vs. Bhagwah Singh r ported in (19951 6 SCC 476. in the case of Director of E ucation Second and another v Pushpendra Kumar and others report d in (1998) 5 SCC 192 it was observed that in matter of compassionate‘appoi tment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of pureiyihumani rian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of ii lihood is provided the family Would not be abie to make both ends meet, pro isions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who 'may be eligible for appointmeht. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which i' in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does- not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible forrappointm nt to seek appointment against the post Weston i a s: hich wod have een availaé, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on ompason grounds of the dependant of the deceased eyee. As it s in the natr o exce )tion to the general provisions, it cannot substitute e prsion to which it is am exception and thereby nuiiify the main provision b taing a completeiy the right conferred by {the-main provision. n ”the case of of Pubiic In§tmc§ions and 0%rs vs. KR. reported in 2 S§i3 also the Apex Court has taken the ' same w‘v Vie The Aex Cour in the case of Nationa! Hydroelectric Power p t Chand and another reported in 2004 AIR has lso el as ne: “it i to be se hat the appointment on compassionate rUnd ot a source of recruitment but merely an excetin to requirement regarding appointments beig mad open i tation of appiication on merits. asi inntion is that on the death of the employee ' oncerne is fily not deprived of the means of livelihood. T obct i to enable the family to getover sudde financial criSes." Havi onsidered e facts a d circumstances of the cases,’ material on rerd and in view of the law laid own by the Apex Court in the aforesaid ”cases, not a ase fr xercisin tra rdinary jurisdiction by this ‘Court under Article 26/2 of the onstituion fl dia. The petitionail and is accordi gly dismi ’fs s w ul b bl csiate mplo i ue f th ovi y k awy i Commissioner Vishwanath JT 2005 (8 Corggration and another Vs. Nanak SCW 6339 a hd udr s en t gO is n po the n eon n i Bc te cd h am i he je n ng c th co c o eg ex a 227 Ct o