Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 906 (PAT)

Manish Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2001-09-24

AFTAB ALAM

body2001
Judgment 1. The petitioners claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been turned down by the respondent authorities under unfortunate circumstances. 2. The facts are brief and without controversy. The father of the petitioner died on 31.8.1995 while he was in service and was posted as the Principal in a nationalised high school upto + 2 level. Following his death his elder son, namely, Mayank Manohar, elder brother of the petitioner, was appointed as an Assistant teacher on 26.3.1996 under the scheme of compassionate appointments. Unfortunately, Mayank Manohar died on 29.12.1997, within two years of his appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the present petitioner made an application for appointment on 20.12.1998 which was favourably recommended by the Block Education Extension Officer. His claim was, however, rejected by the District Compassionate Committee and he was informed by letter, dated 24.7.1999 written by the District Superintendant of Education, Gaya. 3. The District Compassionate Committee cannot be said to be totally unjustified in taking a decision against the petitioner. The brother of deceased employee is not covered by the scheme of compassionate appointments and in case the petitioner seeks appointment on compasionate grounds with reference to the death of his father, the authorities would say that under the scheme of compassionate appointment only one appointment is provided in respect of a deceased employee. It could be said that the petitioners elder brother Mayank Manohar having been appointed following the death of their father, there was no scope for any second appointment with reference to the death of their father. 4. From one point of view the authorities would be right but in my considered opinion such a stand would be contrary to the main object and purpose of the scheme and would amount to frustrating the main object of the scheme. The condition that only one of the dependents of a government employee can be given employment following the death of the employee is perfectly valid restriction but such restriction must be applied only in case the dependent appointed on compassionate grounds is surviving or at least he survived for any reasonable length of time. The condition that only one of the dependents of a government employee can be given employment following the death of the employee is perfectly valid restriction but such restriction must be applied only in case the dependent appointed on compassionate grounds is surviving or at least he survived for any reasonable length of time. In this case the dependant of the original deceased employee, after being appointed on compassionate grounds remained alive for less than two years and after his death the family of the deceased employee was once again thrown into the same financial distress, apart from the emotional trauma of seeing two deaths in the family within a short span of time. In such a case if the condition of one employment with reference to the deceased employee is enforced rigidly then that would amount to an unduly harsh construction of the conditions of compassionate appointments. 5. This court is, therefore, of the view that in case the dependant of a government employee who was appointed on compassionate grounds expires shortly after being appointed, say within two years of appointment, then in that case the condition of one employment with reference to the deceased employee may not apply with such rigidity in all cases. In appropriate cases the respondent authorities may relax this condition and may consider the second son (or any other eligible dependant) of the original deceased employee for appointment. The decision of the District Compassionate Committee rejecting the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. it is made clear that this writ petition is allowed on the ground that the petitioners claim was rejected solely for the reasons that he could not be considered for appointment with reference to the death of his father because one appointment was already made following the death of the father. The District Compassionate Committee is now required to consider his case on merits and see whether he satisfies the other conditions of employment in respect of which this court is not expressing any opinion, is expected that a final decision on the petitioners claim for appointment will be taken within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the office of the Collector, Gaya.