Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1219 (PAT)

Md. Jahangir v. State

2004-12-08

NAVIN SINHA

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The father of the petitioner died in harness in 3.5.1994 while holding the post of Painter, Grade-IV in Mechanical Division, Gandak Project, West Champaran at Bettiah.The petitioner duly applied for compassionate appointment on 27.6.1994. The date of birth of the petitioner being 1.1.1957 he was over age by two years five months twenty six days for being considered for appointment in the service of the State Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this point of time the maximum age for entry in the government service was 35 years. The claim of the petitioner having been rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 30.1.1996 he approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1146 of 1999. The writ petition was disposed off by order dated 13.3.2000, whereby respondents were directed to refer the case of the petitioner to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms for the purpose of considering as to whether he is entitled for relaxation of age or not. 4. In pursuance thereof the impugned order came to be passed at Annexure-6. The reason given for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was that the earlier circular dated 1.11.1993 by which the decision taken not to provide age relaxation in the case of compassionate appointment was recalled and set aside by an order dated 24.7.1998 with effect from the date of issuance of the latter. As the petitioner is stated to be claiming to have applied for compassionate appointment being over age in 1994 he was not entitled to compassionate appointment by relaxation of age under the circular issued on 25th July, 1998 which was perspective in its operation. 5. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment within time. There is no other reason for rejection except the circular of 25.7.1998. 6. The nature of appointment on compassionate grounds and the urgency inherent therein needs no emphasis. Respondents were obviously required to consider the same expeditiously and arrive at the appropriate decision. In the present case, the petitioner applied on 27.6.1994. The same was rejected after nearly one and a half years i.e. on 30.1.1996. 6. The nature of appointment on compassionate grounds and the urgency inherent therein needs no emphasis. Respondents were obviously required to consider the same expeditiously and arrive at the appropriate decision. In the present case, the petitioner applied on 27.6.1994. The same was rejected after nearly one and a half years i.e. on 30.1.1996. This Court finds that the reasons given in the present order that the circular for relaxation of age on compassionate appointment is effective from 24.7.1998 cannot be a valid justification to deny the benefit to the petitioner. This Court finds that by letter no. 3/k 11946 dated 30.11.1984 the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the State Government had issued a circular regulating the issue of relaxation of age in compassionate appointment. Clause 7 of the Circular specifically reads as under: (Local language) 7. Learned counsel for the State is unable to show to this Court that when the circular came to be issued on 1.11.1993 that relaxation of age was not to be granted on compassionate appointment, the aforesaid circular of 1984 was recalled. Result would be that respondents came to issue circular dated 1.11.1993 denying the benefit to the petitioner which remained available to him under the aforesaid circular of 1984. Notwithstanding that, this Court also finds that it is the respondents who are negligent for their act of frequent changes with regard to the procedure for compassionate appointment. The changes made by the respondents at their discretion from time to time cannot be a valid justification to deny consideration for appointment to a person who was otherwise eligible. Rule 54 of the Bihar Service Code vests power for relaxation of age in appointment of a government servant. It is on this provision that the circular of 1998 also rests. In the aforesaid background of the existence of the circular of 1984, the matter relating to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate, ground the conduct of the respondent in changing their procedure from time to time, this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case comes to a conclusion that justice has been denied to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for relaxation in age and his case be considered for appointment on compassionate ground accordingly. 8. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for relaxation in age and his case be considered for appointment on compassionate ground accordingly. 8. The respondents, therefore, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground by relaxation of age in accordance with law. Should the respondents arrive at a decision in their discretionary jurisdiction to grant relaxation of age to the petitioner as applicable at the relevant time, it is expected that they shall act with expeditiousness. Let this whole exercise be carried out within eight months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to the costs.