Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 716 (PAT)

Triveni Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-10

NAVIN SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner, widow of the deceased, applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 4.6.1993 well within time after death of her husband on 17.9.1991. It appears that by an order dated 19.6.1993 she was sponsored for compassionate appointment also. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in CWJC No. 3834 of 2004 when the appointment was not forthcoming. This Court while disposing of the writ application on 31.1.2005 noticed that the objections of the respondents were on two grounds only. Apart from the petitioner, the petitioners son-in-law as well as her son had applied for compassionate appointment and that the petitioner had not given her date of birth and had not produced sufficient evidence in support thereof. 3. This Court held that in accordance with the policy of the Government for compassionate appointment the petitioner as a wife of the deceased was required to be considered first. This Court therefore rejected the first ground urged by the respondent that the son and son-in-law of the petitioner had also applied for compassionate appointment. Directions were given to the petitioner to submit documents in support of her date of birth and the respondents were directed to reconsider her case. 4. It is not in controversy that the petitioner submitted her documents. Unfortunately her case again came to be rejected by order dated 16.3.2005 at Annexure 4 affirmed by order dated 16.9.2005. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied in time for appointment on compassionate ground. On the date that she applied there was no minimum qualification prescribed. The minimum qualification requiring a candidate for compassionate appointment to be qualified till Class VIII was introduced on 24.4.1997, much after the petitioner had submitted her application. The impugned order itself acknowledges that the petitioner had submitted documents in support of her date of birth. The order therefore to the extent that it rejects her application on the ground that she claimed herself to be Class VIII pass but had affixed her thumb impression or that there was some discrepancy in the name of her son in her application were wholly extraneous matters. By taking into consideration irrelevant materials the application has been rejected. The order therefore to the extent that it rejects her application on the ground that she claimed herself to be Class VIII pass but had affixed her thumb impression or that there was some discrepancy in the name of her son in her application were wholly extraneous matters. By taking into consideration irrelevant materials the application has been rejected. He next submitted that even as far as her age is concerned, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not fulfil the minimum age of eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground. At best there was variation in her age between 35 to 44 years. The petitioner after she approached the writ Court had submitted documentary evidence that her age be 44 years in contradistinction in her original application declaring her age to be 35 years. 6. Learned Counsel for the State in support of the impugned order submitted that reasons have been assigned by application of mind, the authorities were not satisfied with regard to the evidence furnished of her date of birth and therefore the impugned order requires no interference. It was next submitted that more than 14 years have passed since the death of the husband of the petitioner. She has survived. She was therefore in no need for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is not in controversy that on the date that the petitioner applied, on 4.6.1993, there was no minimum educational qualification required for appointment on compassionate ground. The same came to be introduced on 24.4.1997. The right to apply for appointment on compassionate ground accrued to the petitioner on the date of death of her husband and fructified on the date that she made the application. Her application will therefore have to be considered in accordance with law as it existed on the date of the application. Any subsequent change made after the petitioner had submitted her application and while it was pending, cannot be of any avail to the respondents to deny her the benefits under the changed policy. To that extent this Court finds no merit in the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification of Class VIII. 8. Any subsequent change made after the petitioner had submitted her application and while it was pending, cannot be of any avail to the respondents to deny her the benefits under the changed policy. To that extent this Court finds no merit in the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification of Class VIII. 8. This Court further finds that the grounds that the petitioner claimed herself to be educated till matric but that she had affixed her thumb impression on the application or that the name of her son was different in the application, is of no relevance in considering her application. These were matters which came to an end with the earlier order of this Court dated 31.1.2005 in CWJC No. 3834 of 2004. The controversy had been narrowed down by the respondents themselves to the issue of the age of the petitioner only. The issue of the petitioner being in dire stress and the imperative of compassionate appointment to her is not in controversy by the respondents. 9. Coming to the last issue with regard to the documentary evidence furnished by the petitioner of her age, in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, this Court finds the reason assigned for rejection to be again wholly irrelevant. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the minimum required age for appointment in government service. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in this State where education is not very widespread, female illiteracy is still a bane, more particularly women are confined to the home, many of them do not even know their date of birth. They will recollect the approximate month or year of their birth by reference to natural or social events that may have taken place around the time of their birth. This Court therefore finds it difficult to even upheld the order of the respondents on that ground. 10. The petitioner applied in time. Relentlessly pursued her claim. The respondents appear to be adopting ploys to defeat the claim. The delay in the appointment is attributable to them. They cannot take advantage of their own acts to defeat the petitioners claim. 11. The orders dated 16.3.2005 and 16.5.2005 at Annexures 4 and 9 respectively are accordingly set aside. 12. The petitioner applied in time. Relentlessly pursued her claim. The respondents appear to be adopting ploys to defeat the claim. The delay in the appointment is attributable to them. They cannot take advantage of their own acts to defeat the petitioners claim. 11. The orders dated 16.3.2005 and 16.5.2005 at Annexures 4 and 9 respectively are accordingly set aside. 12. The matter is remanded to the respondents to consider the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds and take final decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this Court. 13. The writ application accordingly stands allowed.