Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1062 (JHR)

Babujan Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-08-29

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 25th July, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, whereby and whereunder, the application of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is overage. 2. The case of petitioner is that his father late Md. Hadish, who was in the services of the State, died in harness on 20th August, 1,996, leaving behind two wives, two sons and two daughters. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the prescribed form on 7th November, 1996. When it was not considered, the petitioner had to move before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2590 of 1999{R) which was remitted to the respondents on 6th April, 2001 for consideration of his case. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Gumla thereafter rejected his claim for compassionate appointment, relying upon circular No. 1600 dated 4th February, 1991. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relied on circular No. 1600 dated 4th February, 1991 wherein, the maximum age limit of 35 years has been prescribed for direct recruitment in the matter of compassionate appointment, the Government of Bihar from its Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department issued a separate circular vide letter No. 3/C-2-60/17/97-Ka. 8093, dated 25th July, 1998 whereby all the Divisional Commissioner and the head of departments were asked to consider the case of dependent of deceased employee for relaxation of upper age limit for appointment on compassionate ground against Class III and Class IV post. 4. It was submitted that the age of petitioner being 36 years 10 months 11 days, as on the date of filing of application, the respondents should have considered the ease of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, relaxing his age. 5. In spite of time allowed to the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed, denying the averments, made in the writ petition. 6. From the order and judgment dated 15th May, 2002 passed by this Court in WP (S) No. 3578 of 2001, Babujan Ansari v. Sate of Jharkhand and Ors. [See 2002 (2) JCR 621 (Jhr)] Annexure-5 it appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court against similar rejection order dated 12th July, 2001. In the said case, the respondents took similar plea that the petitioner was more than 35 years of age, as prescribed under circular dated 4th February, 1991. [See 2002 (2) JCR 621 (Jhr)] Annexure-5 it appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court against similar rejection order dated 12th July, 2001. In the said case, the respondents took similar plea that the petitioner was more than 35 years of age, as prescribed under circular dated 4th February, 1991. This Court while rejected the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, held that the circular dated 4th February, 1991 is not applicable in the case of petitioner because that circular relates to direct recruitment. Annexure-4 to the said writ petition was held to be the circular applicable for compassionate appointment, wherein the provision for relaxation of age has been laid down. 7. In view of aforesaid finding of the Court in the case of petitioner dated 15th May, 2002 passed in WP (S) No. 3578 of 2001, there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to reiterate the earlier order and to reject the claim of petitioner vide the impugned order, contained in memo No. 483 dated 25th July, 2002 on the ground that he is overage on the basis of circular No. 1600 dated 4th February, 1991, which is contemptuous in nature, being against the decision of the Court, as given earlier in the case of petitioner, for which a contempt proceeding can be initiated against the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. 8. However taking a lenient view at this stage, instead of initiating a proceeding against the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla while this Court gives another opportunity to him to reconsider the case of petitioner after considering his case for relaxation of age in terms with circular No. 8093 dated 25th July, 1998 and to pass appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, set aside the order contained in letter No. 599 dated 20th July, 2002/memo No. 483 dated 25th July, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. If he again rejects the claim on the ground that the petitioner is more than 25 years of age as per letter No. 1600 dated 4th February, 1991 without consideration of case of petitioner for relaxation of age as per circular No. 8093 dated 25th July, 1998, this Court may initiate a proceeding against him. 9. If he again rejects the claim on the ground that the petitioner is more than 25 years of age as per letter No. 1600 dated 4th February, 1991 without consideration of case of petitioner for relaxation of age as per circular No. 8093 dated 25th July, 1998, this Court may initiate a proceeding against him. 9. It is expected that the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla will consider the case of petitioner, in accordance with law without being prejudiced that the petitioner moved before this Court twice. 10. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observation and direction.