Chattisgarh High Court
Tukesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2008
Author: Satish K Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K Agnihotri
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition S No 3854 of 2008
Tukesh Kumar Sahu
...Petitioners
Versus
1 State of Chhattisgarh
2 The Director, Directorate
3 The District Education Officer
...Respondents
! Shri B.P. Rao, counsel for the petitioner ^ Smt Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State Honble Mr Satish K Agnihotri, J Dated: 21/07/2008 : Judgement (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 21st day of July, 2008) The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner namely Totaram Sahu working as a School Teacher in Government Middle School, Mangchuwa, Dist. Durg, died on 1-12-1982 in harness. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was minor at that point of time. The petitioner attained the majority in the year 1998 and accordingly made an application for appointment on compassionate basis. The petitioner has also made one more application as required by the officer. The authorities by order dated 14-2-2002 (Annexure P/4) dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner could not apply within a period of three years as per circular dated 1-5-2000. Accordingly, the application was rejected.
2) Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The petitioner has made an application immediately for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. As per Higher Secondary School Certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 27-6-1980.
3) Be that as it may, it is well settled that 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 tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the family members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income.
4) In the matter of Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh1 the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member."
5) In the matter of State of J&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir2, the Supreme Court after having considered all the aspects of compassionate appointment, in para 11 observed as under.
"11.. It is 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 all 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 made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as death of sole breadwinner and likelihood 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 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 mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."
6) Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the case, when father of the petitioner died on 1-12- 1982 and the dependent family members of the deceased employee had survived for a long period since 1982 till date, at this time, granting appointment on compassionate basis would defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment. There is no merit in this case.
7) In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed summarily.
JUDGE