f; ^v o;;' (L^l r=r- © IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARHAT BILASPUR WRITPETITION ( S) No. \^^ Of2010 PETITIONER: ^ ^0;^' ^.%t':- ^<^^3>'" ^ ^ %iy RESPONDENTS: gukhram Muchaki S/o Late Shri Jogaram Muchaki, aged about 29 years, R/o Village and Post Mokhpal District South Bastar, Dantewada (CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner , Tribal Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Dantewada (CG). ^' 4. The Block Education Officer, Tribal Block Development, Katekalyan, district South Bastar, Dantewada (CG). ^' 5. The State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralay at Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA hnw- ^ /\F< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^Tf WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.1 833 of 2010 L^- Petitioner Respondent Versus Sukhram Muchaki The State of Chhattisgarh & others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORALl (Passed on 22nd day ofApril, 2010) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who happens to be son of Shri Jograram Muchaki, who, while working as Assistant Teacher in Tribal Welfare Department, died on 21.03.1993, in harness. According to the petitioner, the petitioner made an application for compassionate qppointment in the year 2004 though, no application in support of his contention has been placed on record. Shri Anthony further submits that the action of the respondents by not granting compassionate appointment on the ground that the deceased employee had died prior to 01.11.2000 is arbitrary and discriminatory. On the other hand, Shri Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the contention of the petitioner that the action of the State/respondents by not considering the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, has no basis as the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 01.11.2000. Accordingly, the cut off date for death of the employee was fixed on 01.11.2000. The. employees, who died after 01.11.2000 their dependents were held as entitled.to consideration for grant f^\ '^llte^. :- 0s. ^g^ of compassionate appointment as prior to that the State of Chhattisgarh was not in existence at all. The aforesaid circular was, later on, amended by subsequent circular dated 02.02.2006 whereby the cut off date was made retrospective from 01.11.1997 with a condition that the dependents of the deceased employee who died in service should make application within a period of six months. The said circular was considered by this Court in several cases with approval. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation 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. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh the Supreme Couri: held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account ofthe untimely demiseof its sole earning members." The Supreme Court in State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir^, 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 Govemment or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It 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 1 (1997)88cc 85 2 2006 (5) SCC 766 :11 'i1iS^:., I h.^/ 8. 3 . ^ survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity tosay "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 ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution." Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case and the reasons for compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial problem of the dependents of the deceased employee, but not to provide employment on compassionate basis de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. The dependent members of the deceased employee including the petitioner sustained themselves since 21-3-1993 for about 17 years without raising any voice. Even, the application was made after a period of 11 years. Thus, the basic purpose of compassionate appointment to provide succor to tide over the sudden financial crisis be fallen the dependants on account of untimely demise of the employee is not available. There is no merit in this petition. In the result, the writ petition fails is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^