Petitioner $3 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ( § J Writ Petition No. 5042 of 2008 Respondents Mukesh Kumar Mishra, S/o. Late Shri Kun} Bihari Mishra. aged abcut 26 years, residence of iaibag, Shrivastava Coiony, Near Raiiway Chowki Chhindawada, Distt. Chhindwada (MP) Versus The State of Chhatiisgarh through the 1) Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Buiiding, Raipur (CG). The Chief Conservator of Forest 2) 3) 4) Baghnadi Range, Rainandgaon. Diszt. - Rainandgaon (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of indie.) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: $hri suniiSahu, counseiforthe petitioner. Shri MRS. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate iorthe State. The case of the petitioner is that me father of the petitioner namely Mukesh Kumar Mishra working as a Forest Guard in Forest Department, harness. According to iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was minor at that point of time. ‘t'he petitioner attained the majority made an application for appointment on compassionate basis on 5-12-2000 (Annexure Pl3) on the ground that the petitioner has no sources of income and financiai oondition of his famiiy is pathetic, butthe Rajnandgaon, died on 1-12-1992 {Annexure P/1) in VoRAL ORDER a (Passed on this 11‘“ day or September, 2938) Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). Divisional Forest Officer. Forest Division, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG). Sub Divisionai Omcer, Forest, -..'Z/ (5") said appiication was {ejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner died prior to 1-1 1-2000. 2) Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submiis that the reiection of the application of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The petitioner has made an application immediately for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority, but the respondent authorities have not considered the appiication tiled by the petitioner on compassionate basis. 3) Be that as it may, it is well settled that compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabiiitation of the family in distress 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 financial 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 members couid sustain themselves tinancialiv from other sources of income. 4) in the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh‘ the Supreme Court heid that “the whole obiect of any compassionate appointment scheme ls to give sucoor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member." 5) in the matter of State of J&i( and others Vs. sajad Ahmed Mirz, the Supreme Court after having considered all the aspects of compassionate appointment. in para 11 observed as under. "11 it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an l 2007 AIR sow 6060 2 (2006) 5 scc 766 \s \\ \ -g‘ (?;\ empwyment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to 3H engime candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. !t is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constituiion. On the basig of competitive meme, an appointment shouid be made tc public emce. This general rule should noi be departed fwm exeept where compeiiing circumstances demand. such as death of soie breadwinner and iikelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is preved that in spite ef the death of the breadwinner, the famiiy survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal ruie 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.” 6) Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the case, when father of the petitioner died on 1-12-1992 and the dependent family members of the deceased employee had survived for a tong 'period since 1992 till date! at this time, granting appointment on compassionate basis would defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment. There is no merit in this case. 'f) ln view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed summarily. Sdl- 1 Satish K. AgnihOtVii Judge ‘