Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1283 (PAT)

Kamlanand Jha v. State Of Bihar

2006-12-20

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar learned coun sel for the appellant, and Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned Government Advocate No. 10 for the respondents. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 2.8.2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7901 of 2003, whereby and whereunder prayer of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. 3. Facts of the case fall under narrow compass. Father of the writ petitioner died-in-harness on 24.8.1993. After his death, the widow wife approached the authorities to appoint her son on compassionate ground. Application, accordingly, was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner on 27.5.1998 for his appointment on compassionate ground. On the day of his application the writ petitioner was aged about 17 years 8 months. His application, accordingly, was not considered at that time, but, subsequently, the authorities rejected his application for appointment on compassionate ground saying that at the time of death of his father he was minor. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed holding that his application filed for appointment on compassionate ground was beyond the statutory period of five years. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the father of the appellant died on 24.8.1993, whereas he applied for his appointment on 27.5.1998 well within a period of five years, as prescribed in 1992 Rules and since the appellant at that time was below 18 years of age, he was not considered but on attaining the age of maturity he could have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground keeping in view that his application was filed within statutory period of five years. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge of this Court committed error of records in holding that the application so filed was after expiry of five years from the date of death of his father. In this background, learned counsel submitted that even if dependent of the deceased Government servant would be under age at the time of his death, he/ she would be entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of maturity, in case his/her application was filed well within time. 5. Mrs. In this background, learned counsel submitted that even if dependent of the deceased Government servant would be under age at the time of his death, he/ she would be entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of maturity, in case his/her application was filed well within time. 5. Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned Government Advocate No. 10, appearing for the State, submits that the application though was filed by the appellant well within time, he was not considered for appointment, as he had not attained majority. 6. It is not in dispute that the father of the appellant died-in-harness on 24.8.1993 and the appellant had applied for appointment on compassionate ground vide his application dated 27.5.1998. It is also not in dispute that at the time of death of his father he was aged about 17 years 8 months. 7. Since the appellant had already applied for appointment on compassionate ground well within five years from the date of death of his father, he was entitled to be considered for appointment the day he attained the majority according to the provisions of the Indian Majority Act. The State authorities wrongly declined the prayer of the appellant on the ground of his minority. 8. This question is already settled by now by various judgments of this Court. A Bench of this Court dealing with similar situation held in the case of Brajendra Prasad Poddar vs. The State of Bihar and Others [1990(2) Patna Law Journal Reports 668] that cause of a dependent, whose father died-in-harness, should not be frustrated on technical grounds and keeping in view the benevolent legislation of the State Government, liberalised view should be taken for providing employment on compassionate ground. It is further held that the dependent on attaining the age of majority would be entitled to be considered even though he may be minor at the time of death of his father. The question of under-age would be no ground to take a decision to frustrate the cause. The facts of the case at hand is almost identical to that of Brajendra Prasad Poddar (supra). 9. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the legal proposition, as noticed above, the orders passed by the State authorities and also by the learned single Judge, in our view, are not sustainable in law. 10. The facts of the case at hand is almost identical to that of Brajendra Prasad Poddar (supra). 9. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the legal proposition, as noticed above, the orders passed by the State authorities and also by the learned single Judge, in our view, are not sustainable in law. 10. This Appeal is, accordingly, allowed, order impugned passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the State authorities are directed to consider the case of the appellant for his appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of his application dated 27.5.1998 in accordance with law. This exercise, however, must be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. No order as to costs.