KANTI DEVI CHOURKE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner and also prayed for quashment of the order dated 28-6-2006 passed by respondent No.4 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner filed for compassionate appointment. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner's claim is that her husband namely, Late Pukhraj Singh Chourke was working as Upper Division Teacher in the Higher Secondary School, Jadutola. He died in harness on 7-12-1996. Thereafter, the petitioner started studying and passed her high school examination in the year 1998 and higher secondary school examination in the year 2000. The petitioner is having two school going children. She has no financial support for her family. Therefore, she applied for compassionate appointment before the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal on 21-8-2000. After reorganization of the State, the said application has been sent to the State of Chhattisgarh and the same has been rejected vide memo dated 10-7-2003 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that the State Government of Chhattisgarh has taken a decision that the legal heirs of the employees who died on or after 1-11-2000 are entitled for compassionate appointment. There is one earning member in the family. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, on admission.

(2.) The law regarding compassionate appointment is well settled that "normally, an employment in 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 except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution". Compassionate appointment is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood and the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Compassionate appointments have to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions issued by the State Government and competent authority, from time to time. The person applying for compassionate appointment must be eligible for appointment in accordance with the Rules and scheme framed by the State Government and there must be vacancy for appointment on the post on which the dependant of the deceased employee is seeking for. In State of Haryana & Ors. v Rani Devi & Anr. reported in : (1996) 5 SCC 308, the Apex Court held that the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame Rules, Regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

(3.) In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in : (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Apex Court held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favourable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned.