^f^'l^^. IN TKB HIGH CGURT'OF' JUDieATURE CHHATnSGARIT ;, ^BH.^PIJR :. • : :, :.!.'''';'':1-.'1'':-;W.P.1'.:]%^^^^^^ /'..•.'.••'. i'etitioner Smt.KantiDevi Chourke W/o I^ate Shiri 13u}$faraj SingU Chourkc,' ' Aged^bauf 33 years, K./ o yutage - yanatia "azar, Tehsit - CKowki Disl:: Rajnandgaon—(G.G.) Versus Responaents 1. l-- ":^- ^y^ i^^-^y-*'.^ '^'sy'"^,-''' .'->' •^'y.iW'::y-'''/':: ':s' •'^^M''^ '.^.•^^•""''^1''^ .<<^1^-:;'''^;:.^^ State^ofChIiattisgaili THipugti'nie SeGretary 13epartmenf of IJ.K.S.BKawan, Rapur, Dist: Raipur-(e.O.) MMcation; ^. "'^ ^^ ysf /3. .f 'L ./ / ^. ^^ ^Q.^' ?»l~" ^y .>6' A^S ({y <3k-'. ^-. ,5. Union oflndia 'inrouga - 'rne yecretaiy ajepartment of personal Piituic Gripvance and.Personnei 3rd Fioor, Lok Naik Bhawan Khan Market, NewDeli-u:,' Ttie Commissioner, . -I3?'y Seheduled Caste, Scliedule(l^'1<"b^ Other BaGKward Class and Minont^ weUare Department rteupur, Dist : Raipur-tQ.G.) • \ . : : GoItectprRajnandgaon, Dist; Rajilanagaon-fC.G.) State of Madflya Pradesn rougfa—Ti^. SeGrefai^^ ^^ ^ Q^erai Adinmistrati^ uepail^^ ;Mantraiaya' i at :vaUaBh :,Hhawa^ ^BhQpal, l3ist;pi8pai-i^.p,)'^,^.^^ ^ WKIT PETITIQN U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTH'UI'ION OF' iNDI^ 'XI-HC-22 "3^ -^WvW, tSTll'i-l'l'o, ftwiyy /1-.-:. al^l^ll .R-fi.dl 311^1 *^ ^ll^t —^^s. 3T^?T '^<tT^ ^tl: 25-8-2006 •'. / • .',':' • l'- AAr. C.R. Sahu, counsel fortl ffif. Safish'&upta, Oeputy £j Np.l, 3 & 4, on acivdnce copy. Mr. S.K: Beriwal,Centrcil64 No.2,<m advcincecopy. : By this writ petition undet India, the petitioner hds prayed compassionate appojntment to the the order dated 28-6- 2006 passed| dpplicdtion ofthe petitioner filed ^ Brief fac+s leading to fi| petitioner's claim isthfft-tierhugba working as Upper Division Teacher | He:clied in harnesson 7-12-1996. T] arid pdssed her high school examincj schpolexamindtionintheyear 200^1 children. Sh&has no financiolsupij for^conipassionate dppointment b /Hadhya Prttdesh, Bhopal on 21-8-2(} saidappli^ation hds beeh sent to t| been.rejected'vide. memo dated 10-| the State &i>vernment of Chhattil heirs Qf the eroployees who diec) compqssionate appointnnent. Ther4 .•til''<fcl41-llitiai41%<A ^R^IT '^^f:a*T aii^i ^epptitioner, ... . • • -: : |ovt. Advocate for the State/respondents Ivt. Counsel for Union of India/respondent Article 226/227 oftheGonstitutionof ^hdt the wspondents be directed to give ^etitibner and also ppayed for quashmentof byresporiderit t'.l6.4therebyrejectingthe ^or compassionate appointment. ^ ^ng^of this writ petition are thcEt the \sd namely/Late Pukhrty Sjngh CHpupke »»as |inthe HigherSecondarySehool,jQdutola. iherea'fter.the petitionerstartedstudying ition intheyear 1998 and higher secondary 3. ,The petitioner is havin9two school geta^ iortt for her family. Therefore, she applied efore the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, 00. After reorganization of the State.the leStcrt'e ofChhattisgor-h arid thesamehas 7-2003 (AnnexureP-^on theground tha-f- sgqrh has taken d decisipn that the te9al onorafter 1-11-2000 apeerrfitledfor is one learhing meimber in the fami^ » [1[ff^ ^nsi.^. XI-HC-22 .311^1^1 (<;-<i°h ^?I .^tT ^n^fl 's.^'- ' w .It: -s^-^i'iiw'f,' .^Tit'y't'", Rdi'My wffnTa'w^...,£iJ.^'..€<-4-2..' -ff sn^i s^fiw ^rf^f ~£_-J sevek'al I hdve heard learned cpuhsel : Ttie Idw reigwdmg compqs^ "normall^,ariei'nploynrentin^oyernr|iE toa|teligiblecandicl<iteswhocanco( other. It jsihcbnsbnance with Art} competitive merits, an appdintrpenf general rule shouid riot be depdrtejd demand, such as, death 6f sele b( sufforing because ofthe setbaek. bt'ead earner, the family suryiyed necessity to say '90odbye' to normal| one at the cost of infefesfsof; 14ofthe Constitytifln". Coinpassionate appointmerit j of law keeping Jn view the fact 01 leaving his family without any mea^ the •famijy +fli get over suddw fihc^ii have to be made in accordance witl instructjoMs issued by the State 6) time to tjme. The person applyin^ eligible for: appointiiient jn accordat the State 6ovet'nnient ond there mii on which the dependant ofthe decj In Stat'e of Haryana A Ors|, 5 SCC 308. the Aoex Coyct held tlt '4»l^?d4l'lWq'?ff1^ i^l<il •^•^TC • iT-aPOT'sn^i-: • forthe parties, onadmission. |iohate appointjnent is well settled that or othler pub tic sectofs shouId be opw |ne foFward to apply cnd eompete wfith each fcle 14 of the Constitutioh. On the basis of (• should be made to public office. This except where conipelling ci rcumstahces^ •ead edrner and lilteliHood of the family pnce it is proyed that in spite of deoth of ^nd substantialperiod. is over, there is no- |rule ofappointment ancltoshowfavourto othisrs 'ignormg the mandate of Article fincticial s merely an excepfion to the requirement, the dsath of employee while in service s of liyelihood and the object is to enable crisis. -.Compassiona+e appointments 1 the Rules, Regyla'tions or adininistrative wepnment ancl competent outhority, frbiii for co.mpassionate appoihtment myst be ice with Ihe-Rules and scheme ft'amed by st^be vacancy for appoihtment on the post iased employee is seeking for. .7V. Ranj bevi & Aw, reported iH (1.996) idt the claim of applicarit fdr appointment [TT^ ^fe^ XI-HC-22 • sii^r'qii K;-)i* an^r ?t5fl ^lf?Ct -3^^ffiTI^,®Tft?^,ft('l1'H':l'1- f^S! 3II^?T ^RIIW Sf??T. —s oncompassionategroyndishasedo deceasecl-employee. Strictlythis c Article 14 or 16 df the Constitution. However; such claim is ebnsidered reasonable as also allowabte on th^ basis of sudden crisis occurririg in tlie faniily bf the ennployee who had sf That iswhyitisnecessaryforthe to jssye such (idminis'f'rative instruc 14 and 16. Appointmerit on comp mutter' ofrlght; ; In Umesh Kunw: NflCT>al V &994) 4 SCC A38; the Apex compassiohate ground cannot be c employee while in service teavihg his such cases, the object is to enabl| crisis. Sych appojntments on c6m| niade in accordance wi+h Rules, l^ taking into cohsideration the financ| This favourable treatment td the d have clear nexus imth the object <4iHl^l?j1T1 ^wv^^ 'f^^t'Tf^^R ^•sifgq aiitg ^ the premise that he was dependantonthe aim carinat be upheld on the touchstpneof ;rved the State qnd.died while ihservice. aythorities to frame Rules,Regulatiqns or tions iffhich can stond the tes+of Ai'tieles issionate ground cannot be Claimed qs a Stffte of Horyana & Ors. reported in Gourt held that the appointment on source of recruitment. It is merely dn exception to the requiRement df la(v keeping fn vieWthefoct ofthe death of' faniilyw'ithoufanymeansoflivelihood.ln i the family to get oversuddeh financial sassiohate gpound, therefore, hdve to be je9ulations or adnlinistrative insl'ructions a! obndition of the fdmilY of the deceased; lependant of the deceaeed employee must ^ought to be nchieyed thereby, j.e. relief dgainst destitution. At the same |l-ime, however, it should not be forgotten that asogqinst the deatitute fami exception to the r-ule made in favoui ^ of the deceased, there are millioris and^ millions of o't-her fpniilies which tjre equally, if not more, destjtute. The of the family of the deceased enyloyee is in 'consideration of the Service^ rendered by him and the leqitimate . .[T]:^^f^') •/:;'•.•., XI-HC-22 'S^ 'BlFTRPf, ®Tfly'!S,!««"l:iuy •& an^?r T?^ U.T&. inwiTaiHi'*! ^ ^ fg^r expectation, and the -chQn9e in engendered bytheerstwhile emplo' ^- •' .. .•"'. '.;• "•'. .. In Snrrt. Sushnw Goswn AC, in (1999) 4 SCC 468, the ApexCoL oh compassionate grounds. there purpose of providing Bpppihtmeht ci hardship due to death Of the breiic should, therefor'e; be provided- imr The fdct that the ward was a mini ground. unlessthe scheme itselfen; as-and nrheh such minor becomes d conscioUsnesiS or Ijmit. - Therefore;, the law oh the Compassibnate dppointi'nent is made the brea<i-earner in the famjlY provided to iinnediately r'edeem th the dpplicfftion for compassionate compassibnate appoihtment onl-he financiat hardship. , The compassi accordance with the policy taid that there must be vaicuncy to fi appointment on compassionate gro| which the appointrhent is sought, If we'examine the case of] printtiple, the petitioneF's husbah] dodim 4il'<fc!<il-i ^llRlf ^ ft^ XNI5R A SipOT aii^i the stortus and affoirs of the fqmily jmient, which are suddenly upturned. ^wsv^ Uhion of India 8 Ors.'repor'ted |rt obseryed+hat in elums ofqppointmenti thould be no-delay^in appbintment. The n coi'npasslonate 9round ts to tnitigate the 1-earner in the family. Such Qppojhtmenfs ^diatelytoredeemthefamityin.clistress. kr at the time of.death of his fatheris no jfigage specifically otherwise,to stat'e thaf 4ajor he can be appointed without any tjine point is that in fhe first instance, the to mitigatethe hardship dyeto death of cfid such appointments are therefore be e family in distress. The delay in making ^ppointinent disentitles the petitioner for (irinciple that thepetltioner was hot inthe ]on(^te app'ointment can only be made in by the State 6overnmerrt. Apar+ from |1 up the post ahd the petitionei'seeking ^ind nwst alsp be eligible'for the post on| the petitioner in the light of the above y died in the year lS96;~whereas, the [Tft^ ^Fo*li-' s'^^SWS""-'-"' XI-HC-22 ?? an^r TO^^t^a ^ Soma ,'3^ '^qT'nwf, .'s?itelis, Rwiti^ WWIT ffiW^ Sn. »o-/ k petitionep appliect for compassionat years ofthe death ofherhusbqnd.] rejected as back as in the-year the year 2006. Perusalofthe or^ afready orie menlber in the famly family of the petitioner. In.the cj peti+ioner's cloiim.for compassionat| the principle. AApreover, as per | Ghhattisgarh the-legal heirs of th aft-er l-It-1997 are entitled for d petitioner's husband died on 7-12-] Therefore, the petitioner's 1 the petitioner has not been able appointmeht and interferehce by •I Gonstitution of India/assuch;the is hereby dismissed,in litnine. ^I^N^-i "RTR^f "^ 'fe'1^ ^R^l< •^ siPa*; snter' ^ apppmtment in the year 2000, after fpur Moreover,thej:)etitioner'scyplicationwas 2Cp3 and this wrW petiti6n has been fi led in |er dated 10-7-2003 ravealsthatthere is; 6f the petitioner who is earning for the |r<cumst"ahces, on the ground of delay, the t appointineht was not in accordance with jfhe poticy of the. State<?overnnient of |oise employees who died iri hwness cm or loitipassionate appointment.whereas, fhe -1^96. ,,",1 ,.1' : '- • ;' .'.^' :• :::; lipplication has been Fi^htly'rejected and to make put d case for compassionfft-e this CourtunderArticte 226/227 of the 4nt petifion is lidble to be dismissed dnd it Sd/- !»Vd«. Judge ['tt^^[<s^