P.R.N Presente by date CHHATTISGARH W.P.No. 586$ of 2006 PETITIONER: Kheer Sagar S/o Late Jagdeesh Prasad, Sao / agd about 31 yrs , Occupation unemployed, R/o Village Aurda Gram Panchaya Aurda, t Tehsil 85 istt. aigarh (C.G). D R RESPONDENTSL 1.State of Chhattisgarh thrg ouh S“ ecretary Education, D.K. S Bhavan, ~Mantra1y a , Ripur. a 2.ollecto Raigarh, Distt. Raigh C.). Cr, ar G’ 43 ‘” Euc t h - $ 3. District dation Officer Distric Raigar 7xs% cc). \9 ( Q)“ Ci ‘ 9 WRIT PETITION.UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF . THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA o d IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR d 2: e VERSUS HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPU Wrix Peu'tion‘ No. 5803 of 2006 Petitionar: Kheer Sagar Vcrsus Respondents: State of Chhatiisgarh & others Singe Bench: Hou’blc Mr. Justice 5atish K. Apihom. Shri K. N. Naude, Advocate for the peu'iionel. Smt. Anju Abuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents. O R D E R ( 27th October, 2006) The following Older of the Court is passed by W K. W, J. 1. The father of the peu'tioner While working as Assistant Teacher in Government Pn’maly School, Mahua Pali, Block- Pussour, Tehsil and District- Raigarh died in harness on 10. 12. 1980. According to the petitioner, the age of the petitioner, who is sole heir of late Shri Jagdish Pmsad, was five years. The pen'tioner attained majority at the age of 18 years i.e. in December, 1993. The petitioner had not taken any steps thereafter seeking compassionate appointment. 2. After crean‘on of the State of Chhattisgarh on lat November, 2000, according to the pen‘tioner; the petitioner made sevexal ' representan'ons to the respondent/authorities which were not (considered. It is well settled principle that a belated petin'on should not be entertained if the petitioner has failed to explain innniinate delay. During this period the place, if any, which was vacant, might have been tilled up and several persons must have settled their rights. It is / well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of mcruitment, but, is a facility to provide for immediate Iehabilitation of the M13! in dishess for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden iinancial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family i ’ R members could sustain themselves fmancially fmm other souroes of income. 3. In Haryana state Electticity Board and anather Va. Hakim Singhl, an employee died in harness leaving behind him a minor son. As per/the compassionate appointment scheme, three years’ limitation after attaining majon'ty was pmscn’bed. The minor son made an application beyond the stipulated time. The High Court’s intetptetah’on of the phrase “three years time for maldng such request in case of minors” as “in case of minors the period of three years would be applicable fmm the date he becomes majot" was set aside by the Supreme Court on challenge. The Supreme Court held that if the family members of the deceased employee can manage mr 14 years after his death, one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give sucoor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis be£alkn the dependents on account of the untimely'demise of its sole earning member. After a period of about 26 years, this petition has been nled on 9.7.2006. The petitioner has not made out any case mi“ condonation of such a long delay in not tiling the petition or not moving the competent authority before November, 2000 for grant of compassionate appointment. a 5. This petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly the petition m dismissed. i Sdl- w Satish K.Agnihotri / I Judge {(19971 8 soc 851} s Thakur . 1‘