^^ el-'y fflGH C.OIJRT OF CHHATTISG&J?H AT BILASPUR I- f.1 ffl Xrp-f3;r^i T^i5niiai ^A-'t T ^itF- ^^-i^t P 1T T^t3nip;1 ao'fff^ pnrtiii "y •'-^ "^•-•^-••^-f —•••^- -^-—•"~»--^A^- ^.-.....-^ —t ^.r^.-tt^.'^'Ap v-*^i-'*^ ^*^<-^.*- 20 vears, K/o Subftasiiward, tiebmct Uovemment anarfi Oi^tt'i^t T?RiT^isr ^pQ^ Ij./^^-.^, »^^^-^^-..,...,.^^ ^-^.^/E^A-- -»-.^^^^ •^•^ ^.^,. 1. State of Chhsttiss&rh Throu'sh the Sscretai^. Education Deoartment DKS Bhawan, Raipur, (CG). . 2. District Education Officer, District Raipur (CG). 3. The Principal; Goverament Higher Seconda'y Schooi, Ariuni (Baloda Bazarj. District Raipur (CG). •'VRTT PETmON IJNDER ARTICI..E 226 OF THE CONSTITIJTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Safeh K. Agni!«otriJ.3 Preseiit ; Shri Rhaskar P^?asL A.dvocatc fortlie Dctitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur. Deoutv Advocate General for the State. (Passed on 25"' uay ufJune, 2008) 1. ^7ith the consexit of tlis Dai'ties* th©niatter is tak-eii UD for heai'ixig finally 2. Leamed counsel appeanug for the petitioner submits that the father of t!ie petitioner namely Pjjkesh Kumat" Daniel, while working as a Assistant Teacher in Educatioa DepartBieat, at Govemment Higher Secoiida-i^ School, ATJuni (Bsloda Bszar}., District R.i^ipur, died in E.SSS QH 1T.04 .^2001. The'rcnftor^ tlie Detitioncr iiioved 311 s.HDiiCBtiQn in thcs iiionth of Juiis. 01 fbr coniD^ssiQsis.te a.DDointiiiesit. Hc f1irtli<sr ^ubiiiits tha,t till datc no steDS hav^ been ts^ken. r" 3 Shri Y.S. Thafcur, Seanied couHse! appeariiig for the State, in his repiy, submits that application of the petitioner was rejected on 16.07.2004 (Asinexure R/l) on tlie ground that the mother of the petitioner is % Sahu -t^' aiready working as Assistant Teacher iu the sanie departnient. Thus, tlie petitioner is not entitied to be considered for compassionate appomtment under the pfQvisioas of clause 8 of the compassionate appoiniiaent policy dated 23.07.2003 (Annexure P-'2). Clause 8 ofthe said police provides tkat if any eaniing meinber i" the deceased faimly is avai'able then fhe othsr lamily msinbffrs wo"'d "ot be given t-rf comp^sionate appomtineait. !a the present case, mother of the petitioner i.e. widow of fhe deceased employee is already in goversmeut se"/ice. 4. It is well settied t!iat the appointmetlt on campassionate ground is not a method of recruitmenl, but, is a facility to provide for immediate rehabiUtation of the fami!y in distress for relieving the dependent fafiuly members of the deceased employee from destitution. I" other words, the object of compassionate appointaisnt is to enable penurious fasnil1/ to tidc Qver the suiidejEi fiiisucisl ci'isis S!i<i is not to Dfo^dcis emplo^'ment. 5. As tfae mother ofthe petitioner is already working as Assistaat Teacher in EducafaQn Departiienl, there is ao merit in this petitioii. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sl1.!