^w. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRJT PETITION (SINO. 4151 OF 2008 PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS 3. Churaman Lal Sahu; aged about 38 years, S/'o Late Shri Bhuvanial Sahy,R/o village Mohiai, Tahsil Gundardehi, District Durg (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat and Socia! Services Department, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The Dlrector, Panchayat and Social Serviees, Raipur (CG). Deputy Director, Panchayat and Sociat Services, Durg, District Durg {CG). O.ft/rit petition underA-rticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Sing!e Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J, Present: Smt. Renu Koc.har, counsal for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. (Passed onthis 31st day ofJuiy, 2008) Bythis petition, the petitionerseeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him appointment on CQmpassionate ground. 2) The indisputabte facts, in hutshell,as projected by the petitioner,are that the father of th®petitioner namety, Late Shri Bhuyanlal Sahu retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 31-5-1995 (Annexure-P/1) and he died on 5-8-1997, which isevidentfrom death certlficate (A.nnexure-P^2). Thereafter, the petitioner made an sppijcation before the respondent authorities for flrant of compassionate appointment 3) Snrt. Kochar, iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is fully eligible and entitled for getting appointm^nt on compassionate ground. She further sybmlts that the petjtioner is a poor person and Ijving bslow poverty iine. 4) Be that as it may, it is well settted that the appomtment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provjde for immedfaSe rehabilitationofthe family in distress forreiieving the dependent famiiy members of the decsased employee from destitution. In .7-' ^?: - - uowri 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 wetl settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his familyto daim compassionate appointment if the family members couid sustain themselves financialiy from other souroesof income. 5) In the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hak'm Smgh the Hon'ble Supreme Court hsid that "the whoie object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tlde over the sudden financia! crjsis befaiten the dependants on account of the unt'meiy demise ofits sole earning member." S) !n the mattsr of Stateof J & Kand others vs. SajadAhmed Mir , the Hon'ble 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. Normaily, an employment in the Govemment orotherpublicsectorsshoutdbeopento ail eligibie candidates who can come forward t6 apply and compete with each other. it is in consonance with Articte 14 of the Constitytion. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to pubiic office. This general ryte should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as death of ths sole breadwinner and likeiihood of the famjiy suffering because of the sefback. pnce it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the farnily survived and substantial period is over, there is no , necessity to say "goodbye" to ths nonnai rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of severa! others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." 7) !n view of the above weilsetUed principtes0flaw,applyingtothe facts of th®case on hand, the petitioner does notdeserve any relief, There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordinglydjsmissed, No order asto costs. 8) Consequentiy. i.A.Nos.1 & 2 stand disposed of. S^^.AgP®00"1 Judge 1 2007 AIRSCW 6060 2 (2006)'5 SCC 765