BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION s No. Hg 200V PETITIONER )hivpal Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Mohelol Singh, residenf of G.P. Modi Soroi, Tohsil Bhorofpur, Jonokpur, DistricT Korio (CG) VERSUS /L The State of ChhaHisgorh, Through — The Tribal Welfore Department, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribat, Koria, Distt. Surguja Chhatttsgarh. The Btock Education Officer, Blocl< Ramchandrapur, Di-stt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22.2 OF THE CONQTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN FORM OF CERTIORARY OP ANY OTHF’R APPROPRIATE FORM U DER THE FACTS AND 1‘ I; CLRCUMSTANCEo OFIHE CASE OR DIRECTIQNR OR THE ORDERS ‘ AS THE CASE MAY BE. ’ \V ‘V respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely; Mohelal Singh, while working as Assistant Teacher died, in harness, on 20-2-1986. At that time, the petitioner was minor, therefore, on attaining the age of majority, he moved an application dated 13-10-1999 (Annexure P/2) for grant of compassionate appointment, but the respondents have not passed any order till date, in spite of the fact that by letter dated 1-10-2001 (Annexure P/5), the Additional Director, SC/ST/OBC, Tribal Welfare and Minority Development Department, Raipur, instructed the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, District Koriya to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on compassionate basis. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the letter dated 1-10-2001 has wronglybeen issued by the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, the same has been recalled by letter dated 13-3—2007 (Annexure R/1) on the ground that the father of the petitioner died, in harness, in the year 1 986. HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETIT!ON (S) NO.184 OF 2007 PETITIONER Shivpal Singh Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— ‘ Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18‘“ day of March, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the @Q Be that as it may, the policy of appointment on compassionate basis is to provide immediate reiief and succor to the penurious dependent family members of the deceased employee. The deceased employee died way back on 20—2—1986. The son of the deceased employee preferred an application to the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh on 13-10-1999 (Annexure — P/2). Pursuant to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence with effect from 1s' of November, 2000. There were several cases pending before the authorities of the State of Chhattisgarh. The State Government, by circular dated 2—2-2006 decided that the applications of the dependent persons of those employees, who died after 1-11-1997 shall be considered. The said issue came up before this Court in Nagendra Singh Parihar v. State of C.G. and others’ and the same was upheld. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circular dated 2-2-2006 provides for dependent of the deceased to make an application for compassionate appointment within a period of six months fromthe date of death of Government employee. The State Government has taken a decision not to consider those cases wherein the government employee has died before 1-11-1997. The said circular is approved by this Court. In the present case, father of the petitioner died on 20-2-1986. Thus, the application is even otherwise not maintainable. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The State of Chhattisgarh, by circular dated 2-2-2006 has provided for making an application within a period of six months only in the cases where the employee died after 1-11-1997. In the present case, the 1 2008 (2) CGLJ 189 Gowri y petitioner‘s father die in the year 1986. Thus, the application of the d petitioner cannot be considered by the State of Chhattisgarh, as the father of the petitioner died prior to 1-1 1-1 997. 8. in Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singhz, the Supreme Court heid that the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to give succor to the famiiy to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning members. The Supreme Court in 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 fowvard 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.” ln view of foregoing and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- \\ (O . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2 (1 997) 8 SCC 85 3 (2006) 5 SCC 766