SANJAY KUMAR CHETAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents submits that no notice is necessary in the matter as he is ready to argue the matter on merit. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the application dated 17.07.2006, filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, was rejected on the ground that as per circular, application should have been made within a period of six months from the date of death of the deceased employee. The application, being time bared, was accordingly rejected.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the father of the petitioner working as Police Constable in Police Station, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, died in harness on 24.10.1991. Bilaspur district, then, was a part of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. THE present state of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 01.11.2000. THE petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 17.07.2006 after a period of about 15 years allegedly on attaining the age of majority. THE said application was rejected by order dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure P/1). THEreafter, a representation was made. THE petitioner has filed this petition on 13.04.2008 after a period of about 20 months, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 and a suitable direction to the authority concerned to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is governed by circular dated 10.06.1994 (Annexure P/3) wherein, in clause-5, it is provided that a minor can make an application for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. Shri Soni would further contend that memo dated 01.05.2000, wherein, it is provided that the application for compassionate appointment be made within a period of six months, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, the order dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent No. 2 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto it is evident that circular dated 10.06.1994 was not prevailing when the application in the present case was made. The said circular was issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The present State of Chhattisgarh has passed subsequent circulars. Recently, the State of Chhattisgarh, by circular dated 02.02.2006, has provided for making an application within a period of six months only in the case where the employee died after 01.11.1997. In the present case, father of the petitioner died on 24.10.1991. It is well settled that the 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. 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.