Suryakant Sidar vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner namely; Kush Ram Sidar working as Lecturer in the respondent Department, died on 23-2-2011 in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment, which has been rejected on 27-6-2011 (Annexure-P/1). Thereafter, the petitioner is running from pillar to post by making several requests and representations, but the same has not yielded any result. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. After the death of the petitioner''s father, the petitioner is facing a lot of financial difficulties, as he has no source of income for his livelihood.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned communication dated 27-6-2011 (Annexure-P/1) and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

On perusal of the communication dated 27-6-2011, it is manifest that the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner namely; Smt. Ramwati Sidar (wife of the deceased employee) is already in Government service and, as such, as per clause 8 of the memo dated 10-6-2003 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit. Clause 8 of the circular dated 10-6-2003 very specifically provides that:

Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that 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 tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment.

In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh, the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes 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 members."

In State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin, the Supreme Court, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under:

In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due 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 Smt. Phoolwati Vs. Union of India and Others, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bhagwan Singh, In Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Others, 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 been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.

The Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, , in para 11 has held 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 complete with each other. It is in consonance 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 winner, 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 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.

Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts of the case, considering the fact that the mother of the petitioner is already in Government service and further considering the fact that the reasons for compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial problem of the dependants of the deceased employee, but not to provide employment on compassionate basis de hors the constitutional scheme of employment, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.