Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1061 (PAT)

Mosmt. Manti Devi v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-13

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Initially, this writ application was filed challenging the order, as contained in annexure 1 dated 7th December, 2004, whereby and whereunder necessary directions were issued to enquire into the matter about the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and in the meantime, further direction was issued not to pay the salary to the petitioner. 3. During pendency of this application, the petitioner was terminated vide memo no. 497 dated 26.4.2005. The order of termination was challenged by way of amendment application vide I.A. No. 3366 of 2005, which was allowed by this Court and it became part of this writ application. 4. It is contended by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Mst. Manti Devi applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on account of deat of her husbend Chandrashekhar Das, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Hasanpur, in the district of Munger, vide her application, as contained in annexure 2 and the case of the petitioner alongwith others thereafter was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee and a decision was taken by the Committee vide annexure 3 to appoint her on compassionate ground. However, her name was spelt out in the proceeding as Asari Devi instead of Manti Devi and thereafter appointment letter was issued vide annexure 4. The petitioner having received the appointment letter was surprised to see her name as Asari Devi and she immediately reported the matter and represented before the District Superintendent of Education, Munger enclosing therewith her appointment letter vide annexure 5 dated 31.8.1989 for making necessary correction therein. Pursuant to her application, the District Superintendent of Education, Munger, directed for correction of her name in the appointment letter as Smt. Manti Devi vide letter no. 85/3 dated 4.9.1989. The correction made by the District Superintendent of Education was approved by the Establishment Committee vide annexure 7 dated 6.9.1989. After annexure 7 corrected appointment letter was issued to the petitioner vide annexure 8. The petitioner thereafter was posted in High School, Korane on the post of Orderly Peon vide annexure 9 dated 3rd December, 1990. 85/3 dated 4.9.1989. The correction made by the District Superintendent of Education was approved by the Establishment Committee vide annexure 7 dated 6.9.1989. After annexure 7 corrected appointment letter was issued to the petitioner vide annexure 8. The petitioner thereafter was posted in High School, Korane on the post of Orderly Peon vide annexure 9 dated 3rd December, 1990. The petitioner thereafter continued on her post and for the first time, vide letter, as contained in annexure 1 dated 7th December, 2004, an inquiry was set up and her salary was withheld and ultimately, now she has been terminated vide order, as contained in annexure 11. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was the genuine person to be appointed on compassionate ground by the authorities concerned, as referred to above, and no claimant had turned up before the authorities to put forth her claim, and, therefore, nothing had occasioned before the authorities to initiate an inquiry against her. It is further contended that the authorities unnecessarily are putting hindrance in the way of the petitioner by creating a ghost that another Manti Devi was subsequently appointed in the year 1990 on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband, Chandrashekhar Das. It is also contended that the inquiry, which as initiated vide annexure 1, was not completed in accordance with law nor any claimant had turned up before the inquiry officer, and, therefore, the order of termination passed against the petitioner is without any basis and wholly without jurisdiction. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the widow of Chandrashekhar Das, namely Manti Devi, who is said to be another lady, was appointed by the Compassionate Appointment Committee vide annexure E dated 22.11.1900, and, in this view of the matter, the order of termination has been issued. 7. It is not the case of the respondents that in the inquiry, another lady, namely, Manti Devi, appeared and she put forth her claim nor is the case of the respondents that at any point of time, anybody objected to the appointment of the petitioner. 8. 7. It is not the case of the respondents that in the inquiry, another lady, namely, Manti Devi, appeared and she put forth her claim nor is the case of the respondents that at any point of time, anybody objected to the appointment of the petitioner. 8. From the materials on record, it appears that no proper inquiry was held nor sufficient materials have been brought on record to satisfy the Court that another lady, who is said to be widow of late Chandrashekhar Das, was also appointed alongwith the petitioner. No minutes of the proceeding of the Compassionate Appointment \ Committee has been annexed with the counter affidavit. There is nothing on record to show further that the matter was discussed at the level of the Directorate. However, from annexure 1, it would appear that as per the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, the matter was considered by the Committee and the order of I termination was issued. The connected \ records have not been brought on record to justify as to at what stage the matter was dealt with at the level of the Directorate. The materials brought on record manifestly demonstrate that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband, Chandrashekhar Das, and the mistakes, which had occurred in the proceeding and also in the appointment letter pertaining to the name of the petitioner were subsequently corrected by the competent authority and fresh appointment letter was issued, pursuant to which she joined the post and she functioned there. 9. For want of materials brought on record by the respondents and in view of the inquiry held by the inquiry officer, as referred to above, this Court does come to a conclusion that no claimant was examined and her case was considered vis-a-vis the case of the petitioner. 10. Under the circumstances and for the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 11, which culminated upon inquiry, is held to be wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. 11. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in annexure 11, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all back wages forthwith. 12. No order as to costs.