Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 729 (JHR)

Ashish Kumar Kar v. State of Jharkhand

2007-09-11

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2007
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is this writ application is for direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointing him on compassionate ground either in Class-III or in Class-IV post. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his father, who was an employee of the State Government and was working as Assistant Teacher in Kalidaspur Primary School at Chakulia, died in harness on 26/02/1990 leaving behind his widow and four children including the petitioner being the eldest son. It is state that his father was the sole bread earner and there is no other source of income. After death of his father a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- approx. was paid as death cum retiral benefits and a meager amount as family pension is being paid to the mother of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner by filing an affidavit on 19/10/1992 applied for appointment of her son namely the petitioner stating therein that since her son was minor at that time and, therefore, he may be appointed on compassionate ground after he becomes major. The prayer to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected on 31/05/1996 on the ground that he was a minor and his age was found to be 13 years, 5 months and 21 days only. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that after he became major he again applied for employment on compassionate ground on 28/03/2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the several representations filed by him, the respondents did not pass any order rather they treated the application of the petitioner as time barred, which, according to the petitioner, was wholly unjust and arbitrary as the respondents did not consider the poor financial condition of the petitioner's family. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State controverting the statements made by the petitioner in the writ application. 6. According to the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds only up to the period of 5 years from the date of death of his father in view of the Government Circular. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State controverting the statements made by the petitioner in the writ application. 6. According to the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds only up to the period of 5 years from the date of death of his father in view of the Government Circular. The case of the petitioner was considered within the said period of 5 years but he could not be given such appointment because he was minor at that time and when he became major, the period of 5 years had already expired. Even according to the petitioner, after he became major he applied for such appointment in the year 2000. Therefore, it appears that by that time more than 10 years has already passed. 7. It is a settled law that the purpose for providing employment to the dependant of a Government Servant dying- in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time. 8. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of "State of U.P. and Ors. v. Paras Nath reported in (1999)IILLJ454SC ". The said decision was also followed in another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 76 SC". 9. The Supreme Court in the case of "Commissioner of Public Instructions and Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 47" held that Court cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration to make appointment on compassionate ground when the regulations framed in respect thereof did not cover such appointments. There being limitation prescribed, no compassionate appointment was permissible, if application is made after the prescribed period of limitation. 10 In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of "National Institute of Technology and Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Singh, reported in (2007)IILLJ23SC", while considering the case on compassionate ground held that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the son after he attained the age of majority. 10 In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of "National Institute of Technology and Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Singh, reported in (2007)IILLJ23SC", while considering the case on compassionate ground held that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the son after he attained the age of majority. The facts of the said case before the Supreme Court was that the son of the deceased employee was only one year when the said employee died in harness. The Supreme Court rejected the claim of compassionate appointment of the son of the deceased employee on the ground that he cannot be given appointment after he attained the majority. 11. There is no dispute of the fact that when the father of the petitioner died he was minor and when he attained the majority the period of more than ten years has already elapsed since the date of death of his father. 12. Now, at present more than 17 years has already expired from the date of death of the father of the petitioner and, therefore, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court noticed above, in my view, no case is made out by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for giving him appointment on compassionate ground. 13. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed.