^\^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Si No. 1 980 of 2008 ^ Petitioner Respondents Sohan Singh, S/o. Late Shri Kahipal Singh, aged about 21 years, Caste Gond, R/o. Village & Post Pali, Tahsil Katghora, DJstrict Korba (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, DK§ Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) State of Madhyapradesh through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Vailabh Bhawan, Bhopai (MP). 3) The Director General of Poiice, Police Head Quarter. Raipyr (CG). 4) The Inspector General of PotiGe, Bilaspur (CG). 5) The Commandant , It-Battetion, Sakri Bilaspur (CG). <Writ Petition under Articte 226 ofthe Consmutlon of tndia.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihetri, J. Present: Shri P. Dhiyakar.Sr.Advocatev^Si^fAshishSurtliarcounsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kacchawaha, Deputy Advocate Qeneral for the Stete. 7'^.,- ORAL ORDER (Passedon 3-4-2008) The case of the petftioner is that tiie fa^er of the petitioner working as Constabte in 11-Battalion, Sakri, Bilaspur, died on 9-8-1^4 in hamess. The petitioner being minor i.e., ten years, at that point of tim®,coulct not make an application for appointment on compas^onate basis. However, the petitioner, on attaining the age of majorrty, mg ie an appiication on 22- 9-2005 and 10-6-2005 for compaesionate appointment on the ground that - ^-- the petitsoner has no sourees of income and financiat condition of h| family is pathetic. 3) The petitioner atso filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 837 of 2006 eariier seeking for the same relief on ttie saine grounds. This Court on 28-6-2006 granted liberty to the petitioner to make a detall^l representation to the competent autt'iorities and in teirn ttie resptxidents were directed to decide the representation within a period of four montis from the date of production of the representation, Thereafter, ttie petitioner made a representation on 23-8-2006 (Annexure P/3) to the respondents-authorities for considering his case. On consideratton of the representation of the petitioner, the Director General of Poltee/respondent No.3 rejected the representation on the ground ttiat as per eireular dated 2-2-2006, the State of Chhattisgarh would n<rt considw those cases Wherein the employees had died before 1-11-1997. Thus, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and the same was communicated to the Commandant, II Battalion, Sakri, Bilaspur on 1-4- 2006 (Annexure P/4), a copy endorsed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner could not make an applieatioR earlier as he was minor and on attaining the age of majority, he macte an application for appointment on compassionate basis. 4) Having heard learned counsel fw the petitioner, perused pteadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident thatthe ejrcular dated 2-2- 2006 with regard to thecompassionate appointmerrt has been comictered by this Court and approved. Thus, tfie ground of rejection does not s@em to be illegal or improper. 5) It is well settled that compasslonate ground te not a method ol recruitment, but is a facitity to provide for immecUate pehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family menibeR of ttie ^?'^. rr^'^ -3- ^ deceased employee from ctestifcition. In other words, the object of compassionate ap|K>intment is to enable perkuriou^ family to tide over ttie sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment It »s also wall settled that mere deatti of the emptoyee does not entitle his femily to claim compassionate appointment if the family members eould sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. 6) In the matter of State of J&K ami others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Rflir . the Supreme Court after having considered all the aspects. of compassionate appointment, in para 1 1 observed as under. "11.... It is that such an appointment is an exeepton to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other pubiic sectors shouid be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonanee with Article 14 of the Constitution. On tie basis <rf competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public offlce. This general rule should not be departed from except wh^e compelling circumstances ctemand, sych as death of sote breadwinner and liketihood 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 substential 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 ot the intereste of several others ignoring the n^andate of Arttote 14 ofthe Constityti<?n." 7) Applying weH settled principle of law to the facte of the case and the family members of the deceased employe®had survived fcw more tt>an 13 years, the reasons for compassionate appointment is to tide ovw the financial problem of the deceased employee, is not available for appointment on compassionate basis. 8) In view of the foregoing, is petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihott1 Judge ' (2006) 5 SCC 766 ^