@, i yJg} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M‘ WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 365 OF 2009 x § PETITIONER Mahavir Mishra S/o Bihari Lal Mishra aged about 26 years R/o Village Nevsa § Post Gobrlpat Tdhsll & P S Kota District Bllaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. The 'State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Developnpent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG) f 2. The CoHector Bllaspur Dlstnct Bllaspur (CG) 3. Chief Executive §Officer, Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kota,§District Bilaspur (CG). ;(Writ petition under Article 226 of the Con‘stitution of In‘dia) Siingle Bench : Hon’ble Sh’ri Satish K Agnihotri, J. Present :- { Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsei forthe petitioner. i i Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. i i I ORAL ORDER f (Passed on this 19‘“ day of February, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of ithe orders dated 24-11-2008 (Annexure—P/t) & 2-12-2008 (Annexure-E/Z) whereby, the applications, submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, were rejected. i l 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father l of the petitioner namely, Bihari Lal Mishra, died on 20-1 1-2006, in harness, I; while workiriig as Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer at Janpad Panchayat, Kota, Distriict Bilaspur. The petitioner moved an application dated 12-2-2008 (Annexure-P/4) before the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment Learned counsel further submits that the application has been rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground — that as penthe Circular the application should have been made wrthin a ’ .period of stxmonths from the date of death of the deceased employee (I i Learned coiunsel next submits that thé application of the petitioner has ll \g i , i , i l x i i \‘i l een r’e‘eeted on technicalground, which is hot‘ Sustainable in the ee law a ar O ar ru pleadings and the documents appended thereto Notification dated 2 2 2006 (Annexure R/1) clearly prOVIdes that the candidate shoud clai c d th dd mployee and shall make an application Within a period of Six months from he date of death of the deceased employee n e presen case the lication was made on 12 2-2008 I e after lapse of more than months t 120 The b j y of . 3) l hve heard lened cunseI appeing f0 the parties pesed the ompasswnate appomtment on the ba3is of depenency on e ecease "e t th t app 14 i from heidate of death of the deceased employee i e on 20 1~06 relevant portion of the Circular dated 2 2 2006 reads as under 3(93 agamt aga aa a .,W%HWQW WWW "%sma$ f>§‘WW§IWWr ma mmwua 31" m Be that as i ma, it is wel sele prinCIple of law that the ppomtmenton compaSSionate ground is not a method of recrUitment, but i h dit r elieving the’ dependent family members of the deceased emploee fro destitution ‘ln other wos te object of comassionate appoinment is to enae penurious amiy to ide over te sudden finanCial crISis an is no p l t f th le ‘ oes not entitle his family to claim compassmnate appomtment ifthe amiy V . emers could sustain themselves finanCIally from other sources of oe l In the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs Hakim Singhz the Hon ble Sureme Court held that “the whole object o any t y ' (t dc of 4 t tim ng r." l 20‘07 AIR sc 660 ,i 4) i a ‘ s a facility to provide’for'imm’ediate reabilitation 0f the family i‘n sress fo t r y m rd h p t . a bl fl t h d t to rowde empoyment lt is also well settled hat mere death o e empoye d fl '7 - ‘ mb l , incm l 5) i p f compasfsmnate appOintment-scheme Is to give succor o the famil to ide over thei suddenfinan‘cial cri’sisbefa’llen the depenantson-acount he unely demise o‘f'its sole earni membe l l i i i i v l m ) mm a mm m? ‘W#$W$” WW§$3§ maaawmmmm WWm$ am mms‘r t y l ttd - 2’ w 0 I x % l’_ ,3/ <4?? 6) The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin3, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under: “11. In Smt, Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. {1989 (4) SCC 468} it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread— earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt) v. Union of India & Ors. {1991 Supp (2) , SCC 689} and Union of India & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh {1995 (6) SCC 476}. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. {1998 (5) SCC 192}, it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.” ) In the matter of State of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after having considered all the aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 11 observed as under :- 3 : AIR 2003 SCW 4339 (2006) 5 SCC 766 ir‘ W ? 7 “11 ...... 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 fonNard to apply and compete with each other. lt is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the b'asis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family 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.” 8) ln view of the above well settled principles of law, applying to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. The petition is being devoid of merit and sans any substance. 9) In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri