Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 931 (PAT)

Sumitra Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-10

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.8.1999 (Annexure-9) whereby the petitioners appointment as orderly peon on compassionate ground has been terminated. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners mother Anup Devi was a peon in the Women Teachers Training College, Begusaria and while in service, she died on 15.12.1991. Petitioner happens to be her only heir and she filed application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in which the fact that she is married, was stated. The application of the petitioner was processed and ultimately, by order dated 3rd of October, 1994 she was appointed as peon on compassionate ground and was posted at Women Teachers Training College, Bishunpur. In pursuance of the said order petitioner joined on 24.10.1994. 3. It seems that the validity of the petitioners appointment on compassionate ground came up for consideration before the authority and by letter dated 30.11.1998 (Annexure-6), the District Magistrate, sought guidance from the Director of Primary Education and simultaneously directed the Principal of the College where the petitioner was working, to stop her salary. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, preferred C.W.J.C. No. 949 of 1999 (Sumitra Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors), inter alia, praying for payment of the salary. 4. Ultimately, the validity of the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was considered and it was found that the petitioner being a married lady on the date when her mother died, she was not eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground, in view of the memo of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 5.10.1991 (Annexure-7) and accordingly, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner with immediate effect made on compassionate ground. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner concedes that the petitioner was married lady on the date when her mother died, but he contends that in the application filed by her for appointment on compassionate ground, she did not conceal the aforesaid fact and as such, the respondents ought not to have cancelled her services on the ground that she was married on the date of the death of her mother and not eligible in terms of the decision of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. 6. Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel III, however, contends that the petitioner being not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and when the said fact came to the notice of the respondents, same was considered and her appointment has been cancelled and no fault can be found out in the same. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a married lady at the time when her mother died and in terms of the resolution of the State Government providing for appointment on compassionate ground, married ladies are not eligible for appointment on such ground. As the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the resolution of the State Government providing for such appointment, nothing prevented the authority to examine the same and rescind the appointment. I do not find any error in the same. 8. Mr. Sinha, then contends that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving any opportunity to her and that is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Such an assertion has been made by the petitioner in paragraph no.12 of the writ application. Petitioner has not denied the fact that she was married at the time of the death of her mother. The principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse and its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been cancelled on the ground that she was married at the time of the death of her mother and this fact has not been controverted by the petitioner in the present application also, and in fact, conceded. Appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been cancelled on the ground that she was married at the time of the death of her mother and this fact has not been controverted by the petitioner in the present application also, and in fact, conceded. Hence, in the facts of the present case, failure on the part of the respondents to give notice to the petitioner shall not vitiate the order. 9. Mr. Sinha lastly submits that the petitioners salary was stopped by order dated 30th of November, 1998 but her services has been terminated by order dated 4th of August, 1999 and as such, she is entitled for the payment of the salary till termination of her service. The petitioner, on her own showing, had filed C.W.J.C. No. 949 of 1999 assailing the order dated 30th of November, 1998 stopping her salary and the said writ application has been disposed of by order dated 28.3.2000 [reported in 2000(2) PLJR 841], in the following words: "If the petitioner shown her to be a married daughter and/or given the name of her husband, then it should not be construed that the petitioner suppressed the fact relating to her marriage. In such case, the salary for the period, the petitioner actually- performed duty, be paid within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On the other hand, if it is found that the petitioner in her application suppressed the fact that she was married, on that ground, the Respondents will reject the claim of petitioner for salary, even for the period she actually performed duty." 10. Hence the payment of salary for the period petitioner worked shall be governed by the said order. No order further needs to be passed. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. No cost.