Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) SRI H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions in the matter. No other counsel has appeared. However, I have perused the record. The petitioner has sought compassionate appointment and by means of the order dated 24.3.1993 he was appointed as Class IV employee. The aforesaid order is under challenge and the petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on Class III post on compassionate basis.
(2.) REPEATEDLY , it has been held that the purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to enable the members of family of the deceased employee in penury, due to sudden demise of the sole breadwinner, get support and succour to sustain themselves and not to face hardship for their bare sustenance. In Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. v. Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak : 1997 (11) SCC 390 the Court said: As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tied over the sudden financial crises and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment.
(3.) IN S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. : 1999 (I) LLJ 539 the Supreme Court said: The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.;