3^ IN6LEBENCH •8KU&. .:• ^ • • ! ' . '^' ' . ' •jaKSBN^TKE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^s^ WSSift^'. ii^^'s'^'^".':' EiS5BI?S:^ S9SS ^ l@:lt^^: IRa'a»s;?l;:.:: fC.G.t IEBB WRIT PETITIONC.$)NO. <^J3 OF ^o/O 1—1 EBSIEt IgfiSisi gSBg:S:!;; PETII10NEB •Silll^;'S.': H3ir%.-S''i ts^^i" giESBSlNDENTS BHB% SKSKK KiSKiK'. VStWSiW '^li^^'. ^a^^ ^ '^ Blffiii"^ 13Bs^N^;.: i^^A)^'?:i': 'g^l'1^ :''-' s^s^' 1. 2. 3. 4. Raj Shekhar Dewangan, aged abdut 39 years,Son of Late Madan Lal Dewangan, Resident of Village Katghari, Post Pondidalha, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Rorest Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.). The Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur (C.G.). ^State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Forest Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.). Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievahce and Pension, Third Floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. BBRaaRETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF TME CONSTrTUTION OF l3^?yN:;'';'".j INDIA HiGHCOuRT QF CHHATTiSGARH : B!LASPUR vmn'pETmoN (S) N0.493 QF 2010 EtTFQQNcR Raj Shekhar Devrangan Vsrsus RtoPQf'^DENT Stats of Chhattisgarh & Others • !it petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sanjay Agrawai, counsei for ihe petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate rbr the State. Shri Anand Varma, standing counsei f'or the Union of India/ respondeni No.4. ORDER ('ORAU (Passed on thisS"- ofFebruar^/, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel aoDearins for the oarties. the petrelon is heard finaiiy. 2. The case of the oetitioner is that the father of the Detitionsr namelv: Madan Lai Dewangan workina as Forest Guard jn the resoondent Department, died on 10-6-1997 in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an appiication daied 1-7-1998 (Annexure P/2) for grant of compassionate appointment, which by order dated 20-7-2004 (Annsxurs - P/3) on the gi father of the oetitioner died before the date of formation of Sti Chhattisgarh i.e. 1-11-2000. 3.' Beina aggrieved bv the aforesaid order. the Detitioner preferred a DetJSJon before this Court being Vtf.P.No.4494 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dafed 20-12-2005 (Annsxure - P,'4) v'flth a •-direction to the oetitioner to mato.a detailed representation. in compliance of the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 1-2-2006 (Annexure - P/5), which •»yas reiected bv order dated 8-5-2006 ('Annexure - P/7) on the ground ,^^iSSS>->., A"^- -Slf- that in view of the circuiar dated 2-2-2006 the comDassionate aopojniment wili be granted to the dependants. in cass an empSovee had died bete/een 1-11-1997 to 31-10-2000 whereas ths father of the oeutioner died on 10-6-1397 i.e. w'ior to the cut off date 1-11-1997. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned counse! aDpearina for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents is iilegai and arbitrary. After the death of the oetitioner's father, the petitioner and 'nis f'amily members have been facing a lot of financial difficulties, ss they have no source of income for their Sivelihood. 5. On the other hand, iearned counsei aopearing tbr the State submits that after appreciating the case of fhe petitioner on its perspectlve, rightiy rejected his appfication. Even otherwise, the cireuiar dated 2-2-2006 the aDpiicaiion for compassionate appointment has to be made within six months from the date of circuiar. wherein the emoiovee had died betwoen 1-11-1997 and 31-10-2000. In the case on hand. the emDtovee died on 10-6-1997, priorto 1-11-1997. 6. Having heard learned counse! for the pari:ies, perused pieadings and the documents aooended thereto, it is evident that th®circuiar dated 2-2-2006 with reaard to comDassionate appointrnent on the basis of cut off date i.e. 1-11-1997 has been considered and approved by this Court in a catena of decisions. Ciause 3 (9) 3 o!S the circuiar dated 2-2-2006 very specificaily provides that "w^cn^i F'i^fcm fr? pie'tf^T grrac^ v-y, fGCnrt <rT<Tcfi!r<r -Fraa? cE ^ftoT'.! A »Tf^TT rc^T ^RT yu-^w^cl' "^cTcn 'yJT 's^G fS^TTcl? ^ g ^T^ ^t ''?J-??7T ^l'?TT ^ '*ftrT? F?T fcb^l yTT 'yi'coHT ^ t ^^T '?:T:T'Or ~*MrI:fT '^ 'U~^T^ ^l^-nfT 3T?aG^T 4^ ^ :': fqt!R..'?Jr'?T ^l' fi^TT f. ThUS, the ground of rejection does not seem to be iilegai or improper. 7. Be that as it may. it is we!! setSled DrinciDle of law that apDointment on compassionate ground is not a rnethod of recruitmsnt, but is a faciilty to provids for immediate rehabilitation of the famiiy in distress for rejieving the dspendent familv members of ths deceased emotovee from destitution. in other words. the obiect of eompassionate appointment is to enabie penurious family to tide over the sudden financiai crisis and fs not to orovide empioymsnt- 8. In Harvana Sta'te EieclTictSv Board and another vs. Hakim Singh' the Supreme Court heid that "the who'e object of any ^compassionate. appointment schemes is to give Si-iccor to the famliv to 'tide over the sudden financial crisis beteilen tho deoendents on account ot' the untimeiv demlse of its sole earnina members." 9. In Sfate of Manip'jr vs. Md, Rajaodi"- the Supreme Court, afier having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, obser/sd as undei "11 In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. {1989 (4) SCC 488} it was obser/ed that in a!l claims of appointment on compassionafs grounds, there shouid not be any de!ay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mjtiaate the hafdship due te. death of the bread- earner in the famiiy. Such sppolntments should, therefore, be provided immediateiy to rea'eem the fa.miiy in distress. Ths fact that the ward was a minor at the time of dsath of h;s father is no iround. uniess the scneme itseif envlsage specifically othero/ise, to state that as and when siich minor becomes a major ne can be appointea {[Wi] o ^L'L/ o5 2AIR2003SGW4339 s*-'-' 1 'E'-''\ ,- •without anv time consciousness or ijmit. The above view v.'as re'tsrated !R Phooiv/ati (Smt.) v. Union of India and ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 689} and Union of India and ors. v. Bhagwan Sinah (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of Educstion (Secondaiy) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (1S98 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment thare cannot be insistence ror a particuiar post. Out of purely humaniSarian consideraCon and havsng regard to the fact fhat unless sorne source of i'vejlhood is provided ths famiiy wouid not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dep&ndants of the decsased who may b® eiigsbis for appointment. Care has. however, to be taken that prQV's'o" nmi ro jwwwwa-wi vw.'-.w employment which is in the nature of an excepiion to the general provislons does not unduly snterfere with ths riaht of those other 'oersons who are eiigibie . for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would hsve besn ava'labis, but fof the provision enabiing appointment beini made on comoassionate arounds of ths dependant of the deceased smpioyse. As it is in the nature of sxception to ihe general provisions H cannot substitute the provlslon io whlch it ss an exception and thereby nuilify the main provision by taking away compieteiy the right conferred by the main provision." Ths Supreme Court in State of J & K and others Vs. Saj< Ahmed Mir , in para 1 1 has hsld as under: "'i'l....,..!t is tnat sucri an appointment is an exceptlon to the gsneral ruls. NormaJSy, an empioymeni in the Government or other pubiic seciors shouid be open to a!l eligibie candidates who can come forward to appiy and complete with each other.,lt is in consonance witn Articie 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment shouid noi be departed from except where compeiiing circumstances dsinsnd. such ss. dosth of tho sols br'sad wlnncr. the famijy survived and the family su<Te?ins because of the setback. Once it is proved that InsDite of th@ death of the breadwinner, the fami!y suni'ived and subsfantiai period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normai rule of coooinfment and to show favour to one at the cos't of the Interests of severai others ignoring the mandate or ArticJe 14 of the Constitution." 3 2006 i5i SCC 766 ''A-rc?.' '.-t^fc? > 9. Applying weii settied principie of iaw to the facts of the case and the famiiy members of ths deceased emolovee had sun'ivea for mors than 10 vears, the reasons for comDassionate aDDointment is to tide over the financiat problem of the deceased ernpioyee, but not to orovide emDloyment on comoassionate basis ds nors the constjtutionat scheme of emoloyment. There is no merit in this oetrtion. 10. In the resuit, the writ petition faiis Is hereby dismissed ai: ths motion stage itseif. Oown Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTM Judge