''^^^^- ^ 'lf ^ PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0 3585 OF 2004 Vivek Ravikant Baksh, son of Late Chandrakant Baksh, aged about 20 years, resident of Nehru Ward No.12, Budhwari Para, Dongergarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG). RESPONDENTS 2. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The District Education OfTicer, Rajnandgaon (CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 & 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Prafutt N. Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain. Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11th day ofAugust, 2008) By this petitjon, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant him appointm^it on compassionate ground. 2) The jndisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the father of the petitioner namely, Late Shri Chandrakant Baksh working as Head Master in Government Middle School, Budhan Chhapar, Tehsil Dongergarh, District Rajnandgaon, died on 23-6-2001, which is evident from Annexure-P/1, in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the respondent authorities on 26-6-2001 (Annexure-P/2), which was considered and rejected on 14-6-2004 (Anenxure-P/6) on the ground that one family member of the petitioner is already in Government service. Thus, the second member of the family cannot be given compassionate appointment under the policy dated 18-6-2003. 3) Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that the 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 relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tkte over .-T^ Gowri the sudden fjnancial crisis and is not to provkle employment. It is ateo well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his famiiy to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from otlwr sources of income. 4) In the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the wftole object of any compassionate appointment scheme »s to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependants on account ofthe untimely demise of its sote earning member."] 5) In the matter of State of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after having considered all the aspects of compassionate appojntment, in para 1 1 observed as under:- "11......it js 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 atl eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits. an appointment should be macte to public office. Thjs general rule should not be departed from except where competting circumstances demand, such as death of the sole breadwinner and (jkeiihood of tiie family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that jn 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 manctate of Article 14 of the Constitution." 6) Applying the well settled principles of law to the tacts of the case on hand wherein one family member of the petitioner is alr^idy in employment and in accorctance with the poticy of the compassionate appojntment, the second member of the family is not entitled to grant compassionate appointment. The petitioner does not deserve any relief. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge 32007AIRSCW6060 4 (2006)53cc 766