The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of compassionate appointment, the authorities should consider the applicant's case with a sympathetic approach, taking into account the financial hardship faced by the family of the deceased employee.

As per Hon'ble Shri Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.:-

1. This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 7089/2010 under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the order dated 14/03/2012 passed in aforementioned writ petition.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and in consequence declined to grant the relief(s) claimed by the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition.

3. So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition?

4. Facts of the case are simple:-

5. One Kanhiya Prasad was a State employee. He was working as Assistant Grade-III in the office/department of Deputy Director Panchayat and Social Welfare at Ambikapur. He died in harness on 1.5.2006. He was survived by his wife and minor children. His wife was not in a position to seek State employment because firstly, she had to look after to her minor children and secondly, she was not having any qualification to seek employment. No sooner therefore her first son became major, he-son (appellant - herein) applied for compassionate appointment in State services. His request was declined by the State Authorities and hence he filed a writ petition out of which, this appeal arises. The writ Court (Single Judge) dismissed the appellant's writ petition giving rise to filing of this appeal by the writ petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and in consequence allow the writ petition filed by the appellant (writ petitioner).

7. In our view, here is a case of the appellant, which should have been considered by the State Authorities on pure and simple sympathetic approach rather then with legalist approach. A person has died while he was in his early forties leaving behind one illiterate widow and minor children. He left the world leaving the family in total financial hardship to suffer with no one to look after and maintain them during their minority and at the same time, there was no one in the family to take up the State employment due to circumstances prevailing in the family.

8. In our view, we have no hesitation in recording a finding that cause of hardship persisted and continued to exists till date in the appellants family and if in these circumstances, the appellant being the only major son applied for giving him compassionate appointment in State Services immediately on his attaining the majority, then it ought to have been given to him to over come the cause of hardship in the family of late Kanhiya Prasad. The State Authorities should have realized that if the post is less remunerative then the hardship becomes more to the person concerned and to those who have suffered. This is what has happened in this case and hence we can not ignore this hard realities faced by the family for all these years by the survivors of the family members. In our opinion it had to be taken into consideration in the facts of the case regardless of any circulars for providing some solace.

9. In the light of foregoing discussion, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, which is based on only case law rather then on undisputed facts of the case.

10. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The respondents are directed by issuance of writ of mandamus to give to the appellant (son of late Kanhiya Prasad) a suitable appointment in compassionate quota of the State in the State services within 4 months from the date of this order after making necessary verification for giving an appointment.

No order as to costs.

Appeal Allowed.