H{GH COURT OF JUDSCATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SsngSe Bench: Hon'ble Shrt Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Wrlt Petltion (S) No. 768 of 2008 Petjtioner Nandu Ram Sen. Aged about 37 years, S/o Late Shri Sewek Ram Sen. R/o Viljage - Devri, P.0. - Vinayakpur. P.S. - Anda, Tahsl! - Gunderdeht, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. The State of C.G.. Through - The Secretar/, Mjnistry of Wster Resource Deveiopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub DJvisionai Olficer, Tendula Canei Diversion, Sub DMsion Durg, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 3. Exscutive Enginser, Tendula Canei Divsralon, Sub Divislon Durg, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) WR!T PETITSON US^DER ARTICLE 22S OF THE CONSTJTUTSON OF JNDIA Shri B. K. Chakrabarty, Advocate for the petltjoner. Shri AIok Bakshj, Govt. Advocate forthe respondents. ORAL (Passed on this 27th day of March, 2008) 1. By this petition, filed under Articie 226 of the Constjtution of India the petitioner impugns the vaiicSity of the orcjsr dated 25.2.2006 (Annexure P/1), passed bythe Sub Djvisionai Officer, Tanduia irrigation Sub Dsvision No. 5, Durg, •A'hereby the appljcatlon for appointment of th©petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected. 2. The contenti'on of iearned counse! appearing for the petltioner Is that the petitioner being dependent son of tate Shri Sevak Ram, Is entitied to appointment on compassionate basis. The petitioner has produced a document datecj 13.3.1980 (Annexure P/2), inciicating that the father ofthe petitjoner was engaged as Time Keeper, pureiy on temporar/ basls, for the period. not exceedlng 90 days. Learned counseS further submlte that subsequsntlythe father ofthe petitSoner was reguSarized in ser^lce, though no document in support of this contention has been produced. According to the appjicatjon dated 13.2.2006 (Annexure P/4); submltted by th© petitioner seeklng compassionate -appointment, the father of the petitioner died on 23.10.2005, whjle he was posted as SJte Assistant (Stha! Sahayak) on dai!y wages. 3. The father of the petitioner being a daiiy-wager had no right to the post, as hls appointment jtse!f was de-horse the constltutiona! scheme of emp!oyment and not in accordance wlth law. St is further 'vvell settled that jf an employee has no right to the post, hts ciependsnt cannot cSaim }> compasslonate appointment on the basis of death of daily wager employee. 4. The petitjoner has fited thss petition on 26.11.2007 chaiSenging the order dated 25.2.2006 (Annexure P/1) with unexplained and inordinate delay, seeking a djrection to the respondents to grant compassionate appotntment. 5. !t is weii settled that the appolntment on compassjonate ground §3 not a msthod of recruitment. but, is a faclljty to provide for jmmediate rehabslitatjon of the famjiy in dlstress for reiievjng the dependent family members of the deceased empioyee from destitution. In other words, the object of compasslonate appointment ss to enable penurious fami{y to tide over the sudden financiai crisis and is not to provide employment. 11 js also well settSed that mere death of the empioyee does not entitie his famiSy to ciaim compassjonate appojntment if the famlSy members could sustain themseSves financialSy from other sources of income. f— 8. in Haryana Stafe Eiecfridty Boaras and another Vs. Hakim Singh the Supreme Court hsld that "the Vv'hoSe object of any compassionate appolntment scheme is to give succor to the famiiy to tids over the sudden fsnanciai crisis befaS!en the dependents on account ofthe untimely demjse of its soie eaming member." 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmd Mir2, in para 1 1 has heid as under :- "11............it is that such an appointment Is an exception to the generai rule. Normally, an emp!oyment jn the Government or other pubSic sectors should be open to ai! eiigibie candidatss who can come forward to appSy and compete with each other. It ts jn consoRance with Articie 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competltlve merlts, an appointment should be made to pubiic office. Thss generai rule shouSci not be departed from except v4iere compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the soie breadwsnner and Sikeiihooci of the famlly suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that jn spjte of the death of the breadwlnner, the famiiy sumved and substantlai period is over, there is no necessify to say "goodbye" to the normsS rule of apposntment and to show favour to one at the cost of the intsrests of sever-a! others jgnoring the mandste of Artlde 14 of the Constitution." 8. In view of the above settied prindpies of Saw, there is no merit in this pstitjon. The petitlon is 8ccording!y dlsmtssed summarijy. No order asto costs. . — - Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 1{(19&7)8S(X;85} 2{(200S)5S.C.C.7RS}