Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 173 (JHR)

Rabab Fatma v. State of Jharkhand

2006-03-02

M.Y.EQBAL

body2006
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the panics. Petitioner's husband late Yaqub Ali Mirza died in harness on 9.2.2003 while he was working on UK, post of Constable in Excise Department in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Dhanbad Petitioner who is poor widow, applied for compassionate appointment. Respondent No. 3 Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Dhanbad directed the petitioner to submit original death certificate and on submission thereof, application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, who is Chairperson of the Committee. The Civil Surgcon-cum-Chief Medical Officer issued certificate regarding age of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner, thereafter, was considered by the District Compassionate Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad but he claim was rejected on the ground that she is literate. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3, Assistant Commissioner, Excise, wherein it is staled that the Committee unanimously rejected the application of the petitioner as the petitioner is simply "Sakshar"(literate) and the decision was communicated to the petitioner. Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit is reproduced herein below : That with regard to statement made in paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the petitioner's application was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in its meeting held on 25.6.2004 and after due consideration, the committee unanimously rejected the application as the petitioner is simply "Sakshar" ( any now she can sing in Urdu) and the decision of the Committee was communicated to the petitioner vide letter contained in Memo No. 730 dated 12.5.2004. It is pertinent to mention hare that minimum qualification laid down for appointment on class IV post is VIIIth pass. 3. On 14.3.2005 the matter was heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure-8 to the supplementary counter affidavit, which is a circular issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, wherein it has been clarified that for appointment of a lady candidate in class IV post, it is not necessary that she must possess the experience of riding cycle and knowledge of reading and writing. Such lady candidate however, shall acquire knowledge of reading and writing within two years from the date of her appointment. 4. Considering the said circular, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad by order-dated 14.3.2005) to file counter-affidavit. Such lady candidate however, shall acquire knowledge of reading and writing within two years from the date of her appointment. 4. Considering the said circular, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad by order-dated 14.3.2005) to file counter-affidavit. The matter again listed on 17.2.2006, but no counter affidavit was filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, although almost one year has already been passed. This Court again by order dated 17.2.2006 directed the State Counsel to file counter affidavit on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner. Learned State Counsel submitted that the aforesaid two orders were communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad but no one turned up to file counter affidavit. This Court took serious view of the matter and expresses anguish and displeasures to the manner by which orders of this Court have been disobeyed. 5. As noticed above, the circular referred to hereinabove, it is clear from the Circular that the lady candidate is not required to possess requisite qualification for appointment on class IV posts. In the counter affidavit, it has been admitted by the respondents that petitioner knows Urdu, which is the second language, besides Hindi. 6. It is well settled that the delay in seeking appointment on compassionate ground frustrates its purpose and object. But some time we find that it is because of high handedness and inaction on the pan of the authorities of the Government, the legitimate claim of the dependant of the employee for compassionate appointment is frustrated. The instant case is an example where poor widow of a Constable has been deprived of from her legitimate claim of compassionate appointment. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts, I allow this writ application and quash the impugned order passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and direct the respondents to appoint her within 10(ten) days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner is also entitled to cost of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) for unnecessary harassment by the respondents and dragging her to unnecessary litigation. Application allowed.