HIGH COURT OF ‘CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D‘B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ Writ Appeal No. 206 of 2008 Present: Mr. Rakesh Antony, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Harit, learned Dy AG with Shri SK Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5‘“ November, 2009) Par nhirgndra Mishm .I ’l. Appellant's husband Shri Bholaram Kunjam died on 3.12.2000 while working as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department of the State Govt. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2001. However, her application was rejected by the District Education Officer. The appellant filed a writ petition before this Court for direction to the respondents to provide her compassionate appointment, which has been further rejected with a finding that the petitioner filed the application for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2001 whereas as per Circular dated 1.5.2000 issued by the erstwhile State Government, the application for compassionate appointment could be filed only within a period of three months, and in exceptional cases. where minor dependents are likely to attain majority, a relaxation of th‘ree years has been provided for filing application for compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner, did not file ‘ application for compassionate appotntment within the time as per, 9B \ Appeilant : Smt. Kaushalya Bai. W/o Late Shri Bhola Ram Petitioner Kunjam, aged about 41 years, Resident of Village Kohalakasa, Post-Chichola, Pahchayat Madiyan, Block—Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director, Public instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 3. The District Education Officer, District Kawardha (CG) 4. Block Education Officer, Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kawardha (CG) m E)u CircuEar in fame, na {i%i'ec%ian cara be i$3ued for con3idering the “436 of me geti‘iimer fer aempasgionate appointment. :31 "zhe imgmgried order, ii has been futiher observed that the 3ppi mimn far compassionate appointment was finally rejected in the year 2005 whereas the authorities are required to decide such applications expeditiously, keeping in view the object of grant of compassionate appointment. 4. From perusal of the record of writ petition, it appears that the order impugned has been passed without obtaining any return from the State. ln the proceedings of the writ appeal, the State/respondents were permitted to file their counter affidavit and in their counter affidavit they have averred that the appellant applied for providing compassionate appointment to her brother-in-law on 16.2.2001 and the same was reiected on 24.2.2001 . Thereafter, she applied for compassionate appointment for herself on 1.10.2001 and the same was rejected on 24.12.2001 on the ground that the application has been filed beyond the prescribed period of three months as per relevant circulars of the State Govt. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an illiterate widow, she was not aware of the fact that the application was required to be tiled within a period of three months, and in these circumstances, her application could not be rejected solely on the ground that the application was med beyond the prescribed period of three months. 7. On the other hand, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents, submits that adverse observations were made in the impugned order as the State did not file return and bring the true facts on record. From perusal of the documents filed with the counter affidavit. it would be evident that the applications for compassionate appointment preferred by the appellant we're expeditiously processed and the same were decided as per policy of the State Government contained in Circular dated 1.5.2000. 8. We haVe heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as Well as the counter affidavit and’documents tiled by the State. 3g It is not in dispute that the appellant med appiication for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2001 Le. almost 10 months after the death of her husband, whereas Circular dated 1.5.2000 dearly stipulates that the application for compassionate appointment is to be tiled within a period of three months. The application was rejected on the ground that the same has been med beyond the period of three months. 10. it is settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment. but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the‘family in distress for reliving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide empioyment. It is equally weii settied that the compassionate appointment may be provided in consonance with the constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be given dehors to the rules applicable for such appointment. 11. in the instant case, the appellant's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period prescribed in Circular dated 1.5.2000 of the State Government. Considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the same is strictiy in accordance with the settled principles of law and does not caii for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed. “MW r ’ Sd/' i; 1i Dhirendra Mishra Sd/— R'N' CHANmt AKAR. Judge “ Judge