IN HE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . (C.G.l ' wmxsmb. Vg/ g0 /2oos / Late Ravishankar Kedarnath Suryavanshi, Suryavanshi, aged S/o. V ' about 24 years; R/o. Village Nevra, ' Post Nevra,‘ Tahsil Kota, District I Biiaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / PETITIONER —\ RESPONDENj' ' :Secretary, Department of General , ‘ Administration, ..D.K.S. 'Bhawan / :1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through / Raiur p (C.G. ) The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State /v Electricity Board, Raipur (C.G.) hief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) The State of» Madhya Pradesh, Through ' The Secretary, Department of Electricity, Vallabh The Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur (M.P.) )hawan, Bhopal (M.P.) T r s C '‘ ’‘ WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5180 of2008 : Ravishankar Swyavanshi. RSU : The Stat ofChhattisgarh Others. ’ - Present: Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocatz or the petitioner. hri N.N.Ro, Panel Laer for th, Ste/respdent N (Passed on 13 day o Jaary, 2010) 1. The petitioner seeks writ i the nature of mandamus directing the respondems to consider and decide the application @ted 23.02.m01 filed by the peitioner for gran of compassionate appointmen o th ground that th circular dated 2““ Fary, 2006 (Ameure ) ofthe State of Chhattisgarh is applicable t he government servants. o t Th facts, n nutshell as proected by the petitioner are hat the ather of e i j t f the petitioner namely Kedarnat Suryawanshi. a employee f h n o respondent-Electricity Board, while workm'g as Pump Operator, died on 16.01.1999 in harness. The petitioner, thate$ten could not make application for grant ofappointment on compassionate basip. The main contention of the petitioner is that the employees of the respondent- Electricity Board are governed by circular dated 2““ February, 2006 (Annexure P/3) and as such, the petitioner is entitled to consideration for appointment on compassionate basis. 3. 0n careful reading of the aibresaid circular, it appears that the same is applicable to the employees of the State Government and not to the HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH AI BILASPUR VE S RESPONDENTS e & WRIT PETITION U!A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s3: Honble smi Satish K. Agqimnyg J. f S y wy e taon o. 1. ORAL ORDER '“ f nu a n t t t n e e eoru x PB 2 employees of the Board or other public sector bodies. Further, despite opportunity ganted to the petitioner on 17.09.2008 and thereafmr on 17.10.2008, the petitioner has failed to produce any document ie. either a policy decision ofthe respondent—Electricity Board whereunder he has claimed consideration or any document relating to adoption of the circular dated 2"“ February, 2006 by the respondent-Electricity Board. It is also not clear from the pleadings that asto why the petitioner made an application before the respondent No. 3 when the father ofthe petitioner died in the‘year 1999 when he was employee of respondent No. 5; Further, the date of filing of the application for .compassiomte appointment is also not clear as in the pieadingg the petitioner has mentioned it to be 23.02.2001, however, no such decument ms been tiled alongwith the petition. It is a trite law that appointment on eompaasionate basis to the dependent ofthe deceased employee can be granted only in accordance with the policy of the Government. If there is no policy to grant compassionate appointment to the dependent ofthe deceased employee, no writ can be issued against the Government to gant any appointment, including the compassionate appointment. (See Lijh Insurance Corporation oflndia v. Asha Ramchandra Ambeckar Mrs.) & another! and Commissioner ofPuélic Instructions & Others v. KRWshwanathg). Mere death of an employee does not entitle‘the dependents to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources. Ihe petitioner has been able to sustain in'mselfibr about ll years aiter the death ofhis father. r 1 (1994) 2 scc 718 2 (2005) 7 scc 205 @ 6. The principle of law on the conmassionate appointment is well settled. The oompassionate appointment is granted only in th: event, if an employee dies in harness and on account of sudden death, the dependent family has become penurious on sudden demise ofthe bread eamer of the family. The compassionate appointment melfis a backdoor entry. It is a departure fi‘om the general rule of employment, as provided under the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate basis is not in aoconiance with the constitutional scheme of employment but in order to subserve the above A stated purpose, this provision has been made under the Rules framed by the State Government. (See State ofJ&K Others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir? andNational Institute ofTechnologi & Others v. NirajKumar Singh"). 7. Applying the well settled principle of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases (supra) to the facts of the present case, there is no necessity to take recourse to exceptional method of recruitment i.e. contrary to the normal rule of mointment at'the cost of interest of several other persons on the touchstone of Articles 14 or .16 ofthe Constitution. 8. In View ofthe above, this Court is of the opinion that no writ can be issued directing the respondent/authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 9. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the motion stage itself. No order asm com. ew f Sdl- l .Satish K. Agnihotriv l Judge 3 3 4 (2006) 5 scc 766 (2007) 2 scc 481 l