' .a :gh..:zi§i- lN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(SLNo. WI€§ 12009 ($3.) PETITIONER {ajeshwar Singh Netam, S/o Late Anjor Singh Netam, aged about 24 years, R/o 78/3, Nehru Nagar, East Bhilai, District ;Durg (c‘G.) VERSUS /’ RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — Secretary, Board and ' Civil Supply Department, /‘D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Durg Distt.— Durg (C.G.) W CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 3 n \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 7469 of2009 PETITIONER : Raieshwar Singh Netam. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2‘26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Amiimtri. .1. Present: Shri Somkant Vanna. Advocate for the petitimwr. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Pane-1 Lzwwer for the State/respondentg. URAL ORDER (Passed en 07L; day of January, 2016) With the consent ofleamed counsel appearing for ihe panties, the matter is heard iinally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis ’2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner Late Anjor Singh Netam working in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, died on 24.12.2008 in hamess. The petitioner, being the dependent of Late Anjor‘ Singh Netan}, fried an application for compassionate appointment on 27.3.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner thither submitted details on 10.06.2009 (Annexure W3). His application for appointment on compassionate basis was rejected Vide order dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure P/ 1). Thus, this petition. U3 pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 4. Aher considering all the aspects 'oft’he matter in its true perspective the application ofthe petitioner was rej ected as on consideration ofthe case \ i have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the t)x p of the petitioner, the Additioml Collector for Collector, Durg, infonned $0 the Under Secretary to the Govermnent of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Depamnem, than the Wife ofthe deceased i.e. the mother ofthe petitioner is working on the post of Superintendent in Municipal Comoration: Bhilai and earning a salary of Rs. l9,261/— pm. and the brother of the petitioner namely Raj Narayan Singh Netam is also working in the Police Department. Thus, as per circular dated 21.09.2007, the petitioner is not entitled to appoimment on compassionate basis. A- copy ofthe said memo dated 7.9.2009, was also endorsed to the petitioner; 5. The circular dated 2i 09.2007 provides that ifthe Widow or the widower ofthe deceased employee is earning more than a sum of Rs. 60:000/L annuall' y, the widoxta’widower/son or dau Iter or an‘ other relation would not be entitied to be appointed on compassionate basis, In View ofthe indisputable fact that the mother of the petitioner is earning Rs. 19,261/- pan. and the brother of the brother is also employed in the police department, the application ofthe petitioner was rightly rejected. 6. It is well settled principle o'i‘ law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method ofrecmitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in' distress for relieving the dependent family members ofthe deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden iinancial crisis and is not to \ ,_ rovide emE3lovment. J ; ‘ 3 C@ In Haiyana Sfafe Elecir‘icigi Board am? Lmosher vs‘ Hakim Singlql me upreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassiomte appointment schemas is to give succor to the famiiy i0 tide over the sudden fmancia} crisis bafallen the dependents on account of the untimely demse ofits sole eaming members." i In Stale QfAdMipW v3. .Md. Rajaodz’nz, the Supreme Couit, aiter having heard various cases on eempassionate appointment, obsewed as under : ”1 1. In Smt. Sushma Gosam and 01‘s. 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 pulpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardshipidue 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 (Suit) V. Union of India and ors., (1991 Supp (2) SCC 689} and Union of India and ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). ln Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and 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 f (199?) s soc 35 i AR 2003 sow 4339 . ‘ been available, but for the provision enabling appoiiitmeut being made on compassionaie grounds of the dependant of the deceased empioyee. As it is in the nature of exceptien to the generai provisions it’ cannot substiture ihe provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away Completely the right conferred by the main provmon.” 9. The Supreme Court in Stare ofJ &. K. and others Vs Sajad Ahmed MM, in para 11 has held as under: “11 ....... it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rude. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candiilates who can come fomard to apply and complete with each other. it is in consonanoe with Article 14 of the Constitution On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except Where compelling circumstances demand. such as‘ death of the sole bread Whaler, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the nonnal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 ofthe Constitution.” 10. Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts ofthe case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit‘in this petition. The impugned order is unexceptionable and warrants no interference. ll. The petition is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit