Chandrakant Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ

Heard the counsel for the Appellant and counsel for the State.

Father of the Appellant died in harness in the year 2006. It is his case that he moved an application for compassionate appointment but the same

was not considered. One of the reason being lack of availability of the post in question. Thereafter, in the year 2018 writ application has been filed for

a direction upon the Respondents authorities to consider his case for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

application based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been called out from paragraph 9 and reads as under:

Para 9. Further, in the case of Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, 2011 (13) SCC 42, the

Supreme Court reiterating the principles relating to compassionate appointment has held as under:

It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an

employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may

suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or

without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result

of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles

14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital

aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the

administrative process and several other relevant factors.......

Since, the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court squarely applies to the case of the present Appellant, dismissal of the writ application

cannot be said to be erroneous, requiring interference.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.