HIGH COURT QF CHMATTISGARH: SlLASPUi Writ Pention No. 4410 of 200( Pradeep Kumar Baretha, S/o. Lafe Baimukund Baretha. Aaed about 3' years, R/o. viilage Bhudeis, Post Maida, Tahsil Sarangam, District Kasyani (U\s). spondents 1) Stata of Chhatlisaarh, throuah ;ecretar/, Ag.ricuitural Departms,"t, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Director, Agricuiture DeDartment, Raipur (CG). 3) The Soii Conservator Ofncer, Nadi f^h.'t^' Viml'n-t iP«-»S^.syh/f^.^\ ''^'ii^is i LfjHe.ij r\sS[yfiSiU \^^\s^. 4) Union of india, through the Secretary, DeDartment of Personnel. Public Grievance and Personnei, 3'" Floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market. h^-i?-1 HAihi •s:<S^V:f a-^^'ii i^ iWrit Petition undsr Article 226 of the Constitution of india.s Mr. Sai'sh K. Agnihotri, J. Prss^nt' Shri Ssnisv Pst©LcouH38lforth@nstitlon©f. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. rir^ ^s ;j ^n*I ^31" sn^ ^•a ^ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 1 day of May, 2008) The case of the petltioner is that the father of the petitioner working as Surveyor in the office of the Soi! Conservafcsr Officer, Nadl Ghati Yojns,'died on 3-10-1891 in harness. According to iearned counsel aDpearing for the oetitioner, the Detitioner made an aDpiication for aopointment on comisasslona'te.basis immediately thereafter. but the date of appjication is not ciear. 2) An objection was ralsed by one Subhadra Devi @ Suhodra Devj that she was lesaily wedded v/lfe of the father of the setitioner, therefore, without obtalning succession certifleate from the competent Court, no appolntment couid be gsven to the petltioner. A succession certificate on the basis of compromise was issued on 14-7-2001 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the petitioner has fiied this petition after lapse of fivs years on 9-5-2006. 3) it is wsi! settled that compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment. but is a faciliti/ to DrovJde for immed'ate rehabiiitation of the family jn distress for relieving ths dependsnt family members of the deceased empiovee from destitutior.. In other words. the obiect of compasslonate appointment is to enabie penurious famiiy to tide over the sudden financisi crisis and is not to provide employment. !t is also we'i settied that mere death of the empioyee does "ot entiite his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financiaiiv from other sources of income. 4) In the maiter of Staie of J&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir , ihe Supreme Court after having considered ail the aspects of compasslonate aDpointment, in oara 1 1 observed as under. "11.... It is that such an appointment is an exception to the general ruie. Normai'y, an employment in the Government or other pubiic sectors. should be open to alf eligible candidates who can come forward to appiy and compeie with e.ach other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitutlon. On the basis of com.oetltive merits, an aDDQintment shouid be made to pubilc office. Th's genersi ry.ie should not be departed from except where compelling.- -. circumstances demand, such as deaih of sbte br'eadwinner and llkeii'hood of the famiiy suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that In spfte of She dsath of th® breadwinner, the famiiy survived and substantiai period is over, there is no necessity to say (2006) 5 SCC 766 ^SS^. 3- "goodbye" to the normal ruie of appointment and to sho'.v favour to one at the cost of the interssts of severai others ignormg the mandate of Artscle 14 ofthe Constitution." 5) AoDlvins weii settied principie or iaw io the fscts of the case. where the famiiv members of the deceased emoiovee had survived for more than seventeen years, the reasons for compassionate appointment is to fide over the financsai prob!em of the deceased empioyee, is not avasiabie for appointment on compassionate basis. S) jn vlew of the foregoing, this petltion is djsmissed summari'y. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Rslu