'iNFTM'1ffi^^(50&RTo]r"l< SCAroRE'lll'»S W.P, H0« ^2j _ OF 200<| ©\L.A3PC|_R, ^^ PETITIOK e; >• .^f^' ^- - ^ WRIT EE'riTIOK s .gushil Kumar Rsna, S/o» Late K.B. Rana, Aged aboutSll^ years, ^^ f...-' ^fc,' <s^ ^'^ ^^ R/o. Ssdhuchal gear Boudh Vihar ^•••"-^ ^ff^^^y'' ward 80*16' Tulsipur, ^a<l^A <^' • Ra|nandgaon. s 1« The Food Corporation of India ; Through the Managing Birector * fiesd Office at ^hurch ^^A«-s^ ^ f^OmbAy 2. The Regional Office B'ood Corporation of lh(3ia, through the Regioftal Officer,Bistrict, ^, Cb^+^ e.uJU^^ ,^abtbQ^m^ B^Of^L 3. The ©is'tric'fcIsfenager E'ood Corporation o£ Xndia ,Bistt.Raipur« ARTICKE 226/227 OrTHECOm'EEIXJTIOB OS' II©IA. / b HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BiLASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritlnker DiwaRer) Writ Petition No. 331 of 2001 PETJTIONERS RESPONDENTS VERSUS Sushii KumarRana. Food Corporation of Sndia & others. Shri Rakesh Anthony counsei for the petitioner. Shri B.P. Gupta counsel forthe respondents. WRST PETITSON UNDERARTBCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDSA ORDER (02.09.2009) By way of this petition the petitioner is chaiienging the order dated 8.3.2000 (Annexure P-2) denying him compassionate appolntment on account of the death of his father K.B. Rana who died on 26.1.1984 whiie working as Dusting Operator in the office of the respondents at Rajnandgaon. 2. Counse! for the petitioner submits that at the time of death of K.B. Rana, the petitioner was aged about 7 years and thus he was minor at the relevant time. it is submitted that after the petitioner attained majority, his mother filed an application for his compassionate appointment on 17.8.1998. Thereafter, on 10.2.2000 a separate appiication was made by the petitioner himself seeking compassionate appointment. He further submits that as per Annexure R-3 which is a circular issued by the respondents pertaining to the compassionate appointment,the petitioner is^ entitled for the same as the said circuiar cleariy mentions that if the \ dependent of the deceased employee is minor at the time of death \ ofthe empioyee, he can make an appiication after attaining the age of 18 yearsand thus the petitioner ought to have been given compassionate appointment. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the deceased empioyee died on 26.1.1984 but the appiicatlon for compassionate appointment was made by the mother of the petitioner after almost 15 years. He submits that there are number of members in the famiiy of the deceased empioyee incSudlng his wife and daughter but no prompt step was taken by any one of them and they waited for the petitioner to attain majority. This according to the counse! for the respondents shows that the family of the petitioner is well to do and in a position to maintain even without the compasslonate appointment to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner did not care to approach the department for compassionate appointment immediately after he attaintedthe majority as according to him he attalned majority in the year 1995 but the appiication for the said purpose was fiied on 17.8.1998 i.e. more than 2 years after he attained majority. 5. in this case, it is not in dlspute that the deceased empioyee died on 26.1.1984 and the applicatlon for compassionate appointment for the petitioner was made by his mother on 17.8.1998. it is also not in dispute that the petitioner at the time of death of the deceased empioyee was minor and he attained majority in the year 1995. But the fact remains that the application for compassionate appointment was not made immediateiy after his attaining the majority, rather it was made more than 2 years after he became major. This cleariy establishes that the famiiy of the deceased employee was not in dire need of the compassionate appointment. 6. !t js settied law that the purpose of compassionate appointment is just to make the family of the deceased employee tide over the sudden financiai crisis occurred due to the untimely death of the deceased employee. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right at one's sweet-wlli. While comprehensiveiy dealing with the compassionate appolntment, in the matter of M/s Eastern Coa! FieSds Ltd. v. Anii Badvakar and others reported in 2009_AjR SCW 4427, among other things it has been held by the Apex Court ^v*^ ^ that the compassionateempioyment cannot be claimed and offered after a iapse of time and after the crisis is over. Thus if a!l these things piaced in the aforesaid legal compass, the petitioner, in no way, can be held entitled to the compassionate appointment. The very purpose of giving compassionate appointment, as per the aforesaid as well as series of other judicjai pronouncements is to make the bereaved family members to tide over the sudden financial constraint occurred due to the untimely death of the breadwinner of the family. Unfortunateiy, position in this case is quite different. 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factuai scenario, the order impugned denying the petitioner compassionate appointment appears to be just and proper caiiing for no interference in thls petition. Accordingiy, the petition fails and is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge