Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 612 (JHR)

Zeenat Parveen v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-06-20

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. Heard the parties. 1. In view of the nature of dispute and claim made in this writ petition, it is being disposed of at this stage itself with the consent of the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter dated 12/06/2007 (Annexure-6) by which the Director, Karamchari Rajya Bima Yojna, Jharkhand has informed the Incharge, Insurance Medical Officer, Jharkhahd Karamchari Rajya Bima Chikitsalaya, Chatti, Dhanbad that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the application for such appointment was made after a period of six years from the date of death of the concerned employee and, therefore, the same was time barred. 3. The fact in short are that the mother of the petitioner Late Rahat Jahan was employed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (A.N.M.) in Jharkhand Karamchari Rajya Bima Chikitsalaya and she died in harness on 23/12/1997 leaving behind her unemployed husband, a minor son and minor daughter. The minor son of the deceased namely Imran Ansari, after attaining majority, applied on 31/10/2002 for appointment of compassionate ground within a period of five years from the date of death of his mother, i.e. within the period prescribed for making application of appointment on compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, before the decisions for his appointment on compassionate grounds could be taken by the authorities, Imran Ansari himself died on 05/04/2004. At that time, the petitioner, who is the daughter, of Late Rahat Jahan and younger sister of Imran Ansari, was a minor and, therefore, after she attained the age of majority on 19/08/2004. She applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 11/09/2004, i.e. just after one month of her attainment of majority. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The minutes of the proceeding of the Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 13/05/2005 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, from which, it appears that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Committee and, thereafter, her case was duly, recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. But as it appears that in spite of the recommendations made by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the ground that the application for such appointment was time barred. 4. But as it appears that in spite of the recommendations made by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the ground that the application for such appointment was time barred. 4. In the counter affidavit, filed by the State, the only point which has been raised therein that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made by the petitioner after more than six years from the date of death of her mother though the period prescribed is only five years from the date of death of the employee therefore, the same was time barred according to Government circulars. 5. From the facts noted above, it is clear that there is no dispute that the mother of the petitioner died on 23/12/1997 and within a period of five years of her death, her son namely Imran Ansari applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and when the matter was under consideration unfortunately, the son himself died on 05/04/2004. At the time of his death; this petitioner was minor and, therefore, she after attaining the age of majority on 09/08/2004 applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 11/05/2004, i.e. just after one month from the date of attainment of her majority. 6. The question to be decided in this case is as to whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of delay, i.e. on the ground that such application for appointment on compassionate ground was made after five years, the period of limitation prescribed for filing such application. 7. It is a settled law that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the deceased employee on account of sudden death. The compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to the death of the bread earner, who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 8. In the present case, as per the facts noted herein above, the mother of the petitioner died in harness on 23/12/1997 and she was the only bread earner. At that time the petitioner as well as her elder brother Imran Ansari were minors. 8. In the present case, as per the facts noted herein above, the mother of the petitioner died in harness on 23/12/1997 and she was the only bread earner. At that time the petitioner as well as her elder brother Imran Ansari were minors. However, Imran Ansari, her elder brother, after attaining the age of majority applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 31/10/2002, i.e. within five year the period prescribed for filing such application for compassionate appointment but as already noticed above the brother of the petitioner Imran Ansari himself died on 05/04/2004 before any decision could be taken by the authorities. Since the petitioner was minor, at that time and, therefore, she could not have applied for compassionate appointment. However, she applied for appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of majority on 11/09/2004. 9. It is not the case of the respondents that the family of the deceased employee has now come out of the financial hardship or that the petitioner is otherwise not fit for appointment. 10. In more or less similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court was considering the legality and validity of the order passed by the Central Coalfields Limited, in the case of Pradip Kumar Mehta v. Central Coal Fields Ltd. Reported in 2006 (4) JCR 184 , rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground that such application for appointment on compassionate ground was made after a period of six months, i.e. the period prescribed for making application. The Division Bench after dealing Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 held that the period during which a person claiming the right was minor can be excluded from reckoning period of limitation for filing such application. Where the prescribed period of limitation expires before the cessation of disability, for instance, before attainment of majority, minor will, no doubt, be entitled to a fresh starting point of limitation from the attainment of his majority. In other words, the Division Bench held that the period of limitation to file application for compassionate appointment shall begin to run only when the applicant attains majority. 11. The same analogy is applied in the present case. In other words, the Division Bench held that the period of limitation to file application for compassionate appointment shall begin to run only when the applicant attains majority. 11. The same analogy is applied in the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment within a month from the date of attainment of majority and, therefore, the limitation would start running from the date of attainment of majority by the petitioner therefore, the order passed by the authorities concerned rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of delay and beyond the period of limitation is held to be wholly illegal and unjustified. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 12/06/2007 as contained in Annexure-6 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is hereby quashed. The Director, Karamchari Rajya Bima Yojna, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the recommendation made by the Compassionate Appointment Committee and issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.