(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner further seeks to quash the impugned letter/order dated 05. 02. 2007 (Annexure P/5) issued by the respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE facts, in nutshell, are that the father of the petitioner namely Vijay Kumar Chandrakar, while working as peon in the Government Higher Secondary School, Darba died on 29. 06. 1997 (Annexure P/1) in harness. At the time of death Shri Vijay Kumar Chandrakar, the petitioner was minor. After attaining the age of majority in the year 2007, the petitioner made an application before the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment. His application was recommended by the Collector and forwarded to the respondent no. 3 for necessary action. Thereafter, vide order dated 05. 02. 2007 (Annexure P/5) the application of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, this petition.

(4.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 5. 2. 2007 (Annexure p/5) is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He further submits that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor, therefore he could make application for compassionate appointment only after attaining the age of majority. Thus, the petitioner should have been granted compassionate appointment.

(5.) PER contra, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that as per the circular dated 02. 02. 2006 the case of the petitioner is not covered under policy for granting compassionate appointment as the State Government has decided to grant compassionate appointment only to the legal heirs/dependents of the deceased employee, who died after 01. 11. 1997. In the present case, father of the petitioner died on 29. 06. 1997. Thus, the petitioner has rightly been denied appointment on compassionate basis.

(6.) BE that as it may, it is well-settled that compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment and is a back-door entry. Moreover, it is now well-settled that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The grant of compassionate appointment is to provide succor and relief to the dependent members who had become penurious on the death of the bread earner of the family.

(7.) PURSUANT to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh reorganization Act, 2000, the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence w. e. f 1st of November, 2000. There were several cases pending before the authorities of the State of chhattisgarh. The State Government, by circular dated 02. 02. 2006 decided that the applications of the dependent persons of those employees, who died after 01. 11. 97 shall be considered. The said issue came up before this Court in w. P. (S) No. 733/2008 (Nagendra Singh Parihar v. State of c. G. and Others)1 and the same was upheld.

(8.) THE Honble Supreme Court in State of Jandk and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, in para 11 regarding delay in seeking compassionate appointment held as under:

"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 "good-bye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of article 14 of the Constitution. "

(9.) THE ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State of j. and K and others (supra) has been reiterated in Commissioner of Public Instructions and others vs. K. R. Vishwanath.

(10.) IT is thus clear from the decisions cited above that the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment by virtue of a right of inheritance. Even otherwise, application for appointment on compassionate basis can not be considered dehors the policy of the government.

(11.) APPLYING the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.