INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1^L|T»,OP2009 (S.B.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS t.^^ -^'^- .- : .< 1 t.'X-^"-' Vikram Singh, aged about 20 years S/o Late Shankar Pratap Singh, R/o Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, DistrictKoriya (C.G.). VERSUS 1. ^The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of. Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Headquarter Raipur (C.G.). 3. ^ 4. The Conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, Arabikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Koriya, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^ Apt?, 45^ HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No^ 1943 ot20Q9 Petitioner Respondents Versus Vikram Singh The State of Chhattisgarh 85 others Jf; Post for Order on / day of February, 2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •^^ ~~'\ ^.--^??'^S^ I! ^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Respondents Versus Writ Petition (Sl ^1943 of 2009 Vikram Singh The State of Chhattisgarh 85 others WMT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri M. K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. ORDER ( Delivered on this f^day ofFebruary, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure P/6), whereby the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, intimated the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, Raipur, that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased father; and the order dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P/10), whereby the representation of the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P/8), passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 6356/2008, has been rejected on the same ground. 2. Relevant facts in brief, as projected, are that the father of the petitioner namely late Shankar Pratap Singh, working as Forest Guard, died in hamess on 15.11.2002. The petitioner raade an . application for grant of compassionate appointment on 7.1.2003 (Annexure P/l). The mother of the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P/2) that the pedtioner was not ..^ //^' \ '! ttetSaSa. 9 ^ j major as he would complete 18 years after a period of 3 years and 6 months, therefore, the application may be made subsequently. The Conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur vide communication dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure P/3) informed to the Divisional Forest Officer, Koria Forest Division, Baikunthpur that the petitioner has not completed 18 years, therefore, it is recommended by the Circle Level Committee, to keep the case pending. Again on 5.1.2008 (Annexure P/4) the Divisional Forest Officer, Koria Forest Division, Baikunthpur wrote to the Conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur that since the petitioner has conipleted 18 years on 10.7.2007, the case of the petitioner should be considered sympafhetically for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. After consideration, the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted) sent the impugned communication on 11.7.2008 (Annexure P/6) to the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, Raipur that the case of the petitioner could not be considered on the ground that three years period, from the date of death of the employee, has been over and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment. 4. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition, being W.P.(S) No. 6356/2008 seeking a direction to grant compassionate appointment fo the petitioner. This Court vide order 'dated 17.11.2008 disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No.2 raising all his grievances. It was further directed that the respondent No.2 would consider the representation on merits, in accordance with /'F- a1 ;' /w law, within a period of 8 weeks frorn the date of receipt of the representation. 5. The respondent No.2, Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted), relying on the amended circular dated 23.7.2003, came to the conclusion that the case for grant of compassionate appointment should have been considered within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and as such after completion of 3 years period from the date of death of late Shri Shankar Pratap Singh on 15.12.2002, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment. 6. Shri M. K. Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.7.1989. The petitioner has made an application within three years period, as such the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered after he attained the age of raajority on 10.7.2007. It was further contended that the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment should be considered on the basis of the existing rules and policy, at the dme of death of his father. The respondent No.2 has considered even the old claims after 1.12.1997. Thus, the rejection of the petitioner's representation was improper and unjust. 7. Per contra, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that the compassionate appointment is not an appointment in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. It has been held as a back door entry in a catena of decisions. The circular dated 10.6.2003 and the amended circular - dated 23.7.2003 clearly provides that the case of the dependents of the deceased employee, dying in harness, should be considered and granted within a period of three years, not thereafter. Putting a 3 years cap is in accordance with the object and policy of compassionate appoinfanent. Thus, the impugned letter dated 31.1.2009 isjust, proper and in accordance with law. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that late Shri Shankar Pratap Singh, father of the petitioner, died in harness on 15.11.2002. 9. By circular dated 2.2.2006 all the cases of three years prior to creation of State of Chhattisgarh on 1.11.2000, wherein the employees died in harness after 1.11.1997, were considered, provided, the application was raade within a period of six months. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that in some cases even old cases have been considered is not relevant to the facts of the present case, as the father of the pedtioner died on 15.11.2002 in harness. Circular dated 23.7.2003 (Annexure - R/l), which is a part of compassionate appointment policy, clearly provides that the maximum period for grant of compassionate appointment would be three years from the date of death of the deceased. The circular dated 23.7.2003 reads as under : " ynfl'o'id wwv 't)l*ll''t| 1Er?TRf'T f^lTTT 15llel<) ^TCT 4ic^\»\ ftrg •q^-T. '?ray - 492 ooi **fl<t) yp 7-4/2002/1/3 VKI, W^, f^-tfq' 23 ^.cn^, 2003 ^TRT'T ^ 'WRtT 1^">TTT. STEZTtET, 'CTuR? ^Scf, Rdl'M^'! •HI'M RldlHTST WPRT y&f ctiiif^id'i ariSr^Nt ti'nTl'ti'Ki fiVf :— W'V'fi^ ^q^t' ^t ai-MI^Rl* t^ ?^ TR ^-T^ qRqR ^ anf^RT •»^w^t •lUfl ^' TrarfiRiOT l ^f^ff :- ?w f^qrn q>r •H^'W'I^ ^f^ fi'fW - 10/06/2003. ~v-v'',;:ay-' ~:f?. iy 'iSs> fW '?[crfif(T qRq^f gRT <ll-H<<51'l| •t)c|cbY ^t 311<(>R41<t> ^q, ?t^ TR ^S^ TfftqR ^ ^R^q ^it ar^'qT p|ij,[^l l^ uTr^ ^ PT??T U'tllRd l^ ^ t' 1 ~Vw!f STRf-T ^ '?R T Tlftira ^ ^feW 3(12)4 tTSIT 3(12)6, ^' PlMI'^'HK 'HSlty'1 ^t^ ^T PT°N RraT t :- 1. •^f^WT 3(12)4. 4 ffraEIFT t f^ - !iii<f<tfl'ii ^?^ ^t ^cg, irfe 25 ^ ^t ^qT 3[SRT 55 ^ q^ gfT^ l{uf ?t^ ^ M^lrt ?hft t, dt 3i-i,*u<i P^f^r ^ Rp? f^dR ^T ^nir umpn i ??f yi<iyi-i W RdlFld l^qr urrar t i 2. cpf^T 3(12)6. ^' yitf&ll'l t R» - qf^ ^rr ^ f?t^?fr ^ ufT^ ?t^ ^ t(?cIRf %ll'H<t?1<< 4>4T||'{1 ^t y% ?t^ ^ f^-lf^ ^ 1^1 C(tf ^W 3fg,^'IfT f?rg,f^r ^ f^p; R^RT ^R d4oi&i ^T ^air tft ar^tqr PI^I^T ^ qratfT wnl<f ^ uTPpft l ^ ^ cff^tT ^ ~tfS •i\W<f\»^ (, (ul-1<t>l ^?ra KW 01-11-2000 ^ TRiIKT ~^sn t. ^ 'tf'<(6id gqi?iiff ^ f^TC T?qi ^ ^t '^ft^IT 3IT^?T uirft ^t^ ^ R-11'* ^ cIT^?^ft l ^T yitft-ii-i ^ w^-er ^' ppifq f^rar ^rar t R> - ^^ q^ ^ 3rfS Wf ^ W^aft ^ Rp? 'tiPiRi^T ^i'^ift, uit yi-1^'1 4^id y*';"iY ^' wra-^Nr 01 q< ^ Rr? WIT ^: sjh 01 q< ^ ftp? sTsrFtT arpt 02 ^ ^ RP? ?er ^7ft, ?'H ^tpR ^5 ^ R-if* ^ 3T^?qT PTgR^ ^ RP; 3lfS|<t>cl*l wra ^ft*iT 03 ^ ^ift 3. 31-i*")l Pl<j,Rd ^ W^ET ^' ulpft pr?7T ^ q>^ f^ V. V^f^t •^i'yid'ti ^ <§»PT1'Nf TR SITETTfcf f l i^Vt' ^ ww waT-T ^RRltri ^R t I" 10. In the present case, though the application was made within a period of three years, but no decision was taken, as the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years within the three years period. Thus, no appointment could have been made on compassionate basis, as the object of compassionate appointment is to grant 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 'l^ ^ compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide eraployinent. 11. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim. Singh1 the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment scheines is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the undmely demise of its sole earning member." 12. The Supreme Court in State of J & K and others Vs. Saj'ad Ahmed Wrz, in para 1 1 has held as under: "ll.......it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and coinplete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of conipetitive 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 faraily suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the fainily survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "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 of Article 14 of the Constitution." 13. In the identical situation wherein the appointment could not be granted on account of the fact that the petitioner was minor though the application was made by hiin within the period of three years, the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kuniar v. State of Bihar and Others3, observed as under : "3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penuiy and without any ineans of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. ' (1997) 8 SCC 85 2 2006 (5) SCC 766 3 2000(7) SCC 192 "';;»,®' ":;fe<:i a, Pushpendra Kum.ar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a rainor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief." 14. Applying the well settled principle of law on the conipassionate appointment to the facts of the case, wherein the father of the petitioner died on 15.11.2002 and thereafter, raore than seven years have passed and as such requirement of the grant of immediate relief and rehabilitation to the family in distress on account of death of the deceased employee does not survive. The purpose of grant of coinpassionate appointment is not to provide an employment but to see that the family in distress gets immediate relief. Thus, the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of immediate relief after a period of seven years. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am ofthe considered view that there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure - P/10). The same is just & proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 16. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur