Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 668 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar Alfred Marandi v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-05-18

PERMOD KOHLI

body2006
ORDER Permod Kohli, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the son of late Jasai Marandi who was serving as Dresser in the Primary Health Centre, Ramgarh Dumka and died in harness on 21.6.1996. The petitioner being the only son of the deceased late Jasai Marandi applied for compassionate appointment on 12.6.1998 before the respondent No. 5. After the death of Marandi, one lady namely, Mary Chore claiming to be his wife applied for grant of succession certificate. Petitioner and his mother filed an objection petition stating therein that Miru Nirojini Murmu is the only widow of late Jasai Marandi being legally wedded wife of the deceased father of the petitioner. It is admitted case of the parties that some settlement came to be arrived at between the mother of the petitioner and Mary Chore and retiral benefits were distributed amongst them. In addition to that the settlement contained a stipulation allowing the petitioner to claim the compassionate appointment. Petitioner, accordingly, applied for his compassionate appointment and his claim was rejected by the District Compassionate Committee vide letter dated 1.10.2001 on the ground that he could not prove that his mother, Miru Nirojini Murmu was the first wife of the deceased employee. The said order came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5775 of 2001 which was dismissed. 3. It is relevant to note that earlier to this also, the petitioner had approached this Court in CWJC 1133 of 2001 wherein a direction was issued to the Deputy Com-missioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law and if the claim is found to be genuine, appropriate order be passed without any -further delay. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed fresh representation which was forwarded to the Circle Officer, Ramgarh to enquire into the matter and submit the report. In compliance of the direction, the Circle Officer got the matter enquired and submitted a report before the Establishment Deputy Collector, Dumka vide his Memo No. 274 dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure-8) stating therein that the name of the wife of Jasai Marandi was Miru Nirojini Murmu and the petitioner is his only son. In compliance of the direction, the Circle Officer got the matter enquired and submitted a report before the Establishment Deputy Collector, Dumka vide his Memo No. 274 dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure-8) stating therein that the name of the wife of Jasai Marandi was Miru Nirojini Murmu and the petitioner is his only son. In pursuance of the report submitted by the Circle Officer, the case of the petitioner was again placed before the District Compassionate Committee whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the District Compassionate Committee vide its meeting dated 30.1.2001 and the aforesaid decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter 16.1.2003. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the service record of his deceased father wherein the name of the petitioners mother, namely, Miru Nirojini Murmu and his own name Rajesh Kr. Alfred Marandi have been shown as the nominees of the deceased Government servant. In addition to above, the authorities also directed the Circle Officer, Ramgarh to hold an enquiry with regard to the status of the petitioner and his mother as also Mary Chore. The Circle Officer vide letter dated 25th October, 2002 communicated to the Deputy Collector, Establishment Dumka that On the basis of the enquiry conducted by him deceased, Jassi Marandi had only wife namely, Miru Nirojini Murmu and the petitioner is the son of this lady. It is also communicated that Mary Chore was not legally wedded wife of the deceased. Even when status of the petitioner is established in the enquiry conducted, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground noticed hereinabove. 4. Two counter-affidavits are on record. One filed by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka and other by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Dumka. In the affidavit filed by the Medical Officer it is stated that on the basis of the enquiry it was established that Smt. Mary Chery was never married with late Jasai Marandi. It is further stated that an explanation was also called for from Smt. Marry who admitted that she was never married with Jasai Marandi. In the second counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Com-missioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Dumka, it is stated that the compassionate appointment case of the petitioner was rejected on 30th January, 2001. It is further stated that an explanation was also called for from Smt. Marry who admitted that she was never married with Jasai Marandi. In the second counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Com-missioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Dumka, it is stated that the compassionate appointment case of the petitioner was rejected on 30th January, 2001. However, it was again placed before the District Compassionate Committee on 29th June, 2001 and 30th December, 2002 for consideration. But previous order dated 30th January, remained unchanged. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Admittedly there was a dispute with regard to the succession of late Marandi between two ladies, namely, Miru Nirojini Murmu, mother of the petitioner and Mary Chore another lady who claimed to be wife of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that retiral benefits of the deceased were distributed amongst two ladies. Under the compassionate appointment Rules, if husband and wife both are Government servants claim for compassionate appointment to the legal representative/heir of the deceased employee is not maintainable. Petitioners claim for compassionate appointment was declined on the ground that Mary Chore who also claimed to be another wife of the deceased, father of the petitioner was a Government servant. This Court in its order dated 23.3.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1133 of 2001 issued direction for consideration of the claim of the petitioner. Respondent-employer itself held an enquiry with regard to the question of succession and the Enquiry Officer specifically reported that Mary Chore is not legal wedded wife of the deceased, father of the petitioner. According to the enquiry, it is Miru Nirojini Murmu who is the only wife of the deceased and the petitioner only son. This fact also finds support from the service record of the deceased. In the column of nominee, the name of Miru Nirojini Murmu and petitioner, Rajesh is mentioned as nominees. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that Miru Nirojini Murmu is also a Government servant. As a matter of fact, the impugned order is without application of mind. It only states that the claim of the petitioner is rejected in view of the earlier decision. So far as first decision dated 30th January is concerned, it was made at a time when there was a dispute of succession between two parties. As a matter of fact, the impugned order is without application of mind. It only states that the claim of the petitioner is rejected in view of the earlier decision. So far as first decision dated 30th January is concerned, it was made at a time when there was a dispute of succession between two parties. However the dispute having been settled on the basis of the enquiry, respondents are required to re-consider the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment being the son of the deceased Government servant which fact has been established on record. However, effective and meaningful consideration has been denied rendering the action illegal. 7. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment being the son of deceased Government employee who died in harness and if he is found to be a eligible, compassionate appointment be granted to him. Let the claim be considered within a period of three months from today and appropriate order be passed. In the event, the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a speaking order. Needless to say petitioner has right to challenge any adverse order against him.