•y-"^ J RlC.G,-) W.P.NO. ^^3 OF 2002 Versus ^M '^••^^ ..^$^^N ^y ' '^^"^ ...-•' ^ :L2> PETITIGN UNDER ARTIGI.E 22^/227 OF ,3-HE C^STFEEmGN 0F IN0IA EOK ISSIMNCEI QS APPRDFRIATEWRH'S OF MANDAMHS^ERJT^ARI^ !; I;! 1 •IrfiL^^J Api^! '^ HIGHCQURTOFCHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR PETiTiONER RESPONDENT RIT PETITiQN N0.453 OF 2003 Taran Singh Thakur Versus te of Chhaffisgarh & Anothe? -s-s-jo-^ (Writ petition under Artide 226/227 of the Constitutlon of indl Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ><Sui Present:- Ms Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for fhe petrtioner. • Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyer for the State. 1) 2) 4) 5) (Passed on this 26!h day of Qctober, 2009} Witti fhe consentof tearned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heardfinailv. ' iy fhis petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The indisputable facts, in nutsheli, are that the father of the petitioner, workjng as Patwari, died in hamesson 15-7-1988. At thattime the petitioner was minor, therefore, on attainlng ihe age of majority, he prefsrred an application on 13-1-2000 for grant 6f compassionate appointment, but the respondents hsve not passed any order on the said appSication till date. Thereaftsr. the petitioner made representation again on 29-12-2000. The Coiiector, Kawardha, by orderdaied 15-3-2SX32 (Annexure - P/1) rejected flie daim of the petiti'oher'on the ground that ttae petitioner has not flied the appiication for grant of compassionate appointment withinthe stipulated period. | Se that as it tnaylthe policy of appolntment oncompassionate basis is to provide immediate relief and succor to the penunoiss depsndeni family members of ttie deceased emp!oyee. The deceased employee died way baeic on 15-7-1988. The son o( the deceased empioyee preferred an appircatton to the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh on 13-1-2000 (Annexure - P/4). Pursuant to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Reorganfcafiein| Act. 2000, the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence wii )'llliil(ii( (i|ji!j.ii^i-:st[i;^i^-^; •7\ effect from 1s1 of November, 2000. There vrere severai cases pending before the authorities of the State of Chhstttsgarh. The State Government, by cireular dated 2-2-2006 decided that e appticatlons of the dependent persons of those empfoyees, who died after t-11-1997 shail be considered. The said tesue came up before this Court in Nagendra Singh Parihar v. Steie of C.G. and others and the same was upheld. Leamed counsei appearing for ie State submits that the circular dated '2-2-2006 provides for dependent of ths deceased to make an appiication for compsssionate appointment wifhin a peried of six months from the date of death of Government emptoyee. The State Govsrnment has taken a decision not to consider those cases whersin the government employee has died befora 1-11-1997. The said circuiar is approved by this Court. tn the present case, father of the petitioner died on 15-7-1988. Thus, the appiication is even otherwise not maintainable. have heard leamed counse! appearing for ths parties, perused th& pteadings and documents appended thereto. The State of Chhattisgarh, by circular dated 2-2-2006 has provided for makinj an application within a period of six months only in the cases v/here the empioyee died after 1-11-1997. In fhe present case, the petitioner's father died in Juiy, 1988. Thus, the appiicatton of the petitioner cannot be considered by the State of Chhattisgarh as the father of the petitioner died prior to 1 -11 -1997. in Haryana State Eiecfricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh , the Supreme Court held tfiat ths whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to give succor to the famih/ to tide over the suddsn financial {a-isis bsfelien the dependents on account ofthe untimsiy demise of its sole saming membsrs. The Supreme Court in StateoT J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir , in para 1 1 has held as under: "11 .......it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rute. Normally, an employment in She Government or other public sectorsshouid be open to ailsiigibte candidates who can come foraard to appiy \ ' 2008 (2) COLJ i89 2(i99T;8SCC85 3 (2006) 5 SCC 766 and compiete with each other. it is in consonancs wsth Artic!e 14 of the Constituifon. On the basis of compsfitive msrits, an appointment shouid not be departed from except where compelims csrcumstances demand, such as, death of the soie bread winner, the famiiy survived and the fami!y suffering because of the setback. Oncs if Js proved ihat inspfte ofthe death of the breadwinner, the family sur/ived and sij^tantial perioa' fe orer, there is no nscessity to say "goodbye* to ths normat ruie of apposntment and to show favour to one at the cost of ths intsrests of severai others ignoring the mandate of Articte 14 of the Consftution." 10} !n viewofihs above weli settled principles of !aw, applying to the facte of the cass on hand, the petitioner does not deserve any reiief. There is no merrt in this petition. The petition is accordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. Consequsntly, h<!.(W.).P.No. 383/2CX33 stands disposed of. fSowri Sd/- Satish' R. Agnihotri Judge