Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 122 (JHR)

T. Dev Roy Karji v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-02-06

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties on the amendment application. By filing this interlocutory application the prayer for amendment has been made on the ground that during the pendency of the writ petition an order, contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, has been passed on 23.1.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing this application on the grounds mentioned in the petition. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this interlocutory application for amendment is allowed and it is directed to be treated as a part of the main writ application. 3. Heard the parties on the merit of the writ application. 4. The facts in short are that the father of the petitioner namely, Samu Roy Karji was employed as Assistant in Zila Parishad, Chaibasa and he died-in- harness on 5.11.1991. According to the petitioner, he made an application for on 9.8.1994 for being appointed on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father But since, no action was taken; he filed the present writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Zila Parishad (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) wherein it is admitted that the father of the petitioner died was on 5.11.1991 but it is stated that after his death all the retiral dues were paid in due course. It is further stated that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 14 years and therefore, under the Government policies he could not have been given appointment even on compassionate ground since he was minor. In support of the above fact, the matriculation certificate of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, showing the date of birth of the petitioner to be 15th December, 1977. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in fact the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 28.11.1998 after he attend the age of majority, but, it was rejected on the ground that such application for appointment on compassionate ground was made after a period of five years, i.e. beyond the limitation for filing such application and, therefore, the same was rejected as it was filed beyond the period of five years. 6. 6. The counsel for the Zila Parishad relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. " has submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. 7. Relying on the said decision it is further submitted that now more than 17 years has already been elapsed since the date of death of the father of the petitioner, therefore the claim of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate ground is not tenable. 8. After perusing the judgment of the Supreme Court, I am inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents. The present case is fully comes within the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case "Umesh Kumar Nagpal" (supra). 9. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.