Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 48 (JHR)

Stanleus Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-01-12

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that late Jonathan Marandi, father of the petitioner, while working as Teacher in the Middle School, Chholabarda P.S. Kundhit (presently in the district of Jamtara), died in harness on 27.3.1991 and thereupon an application was filed by the mother of the petitioner on 12.5.1994 for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground after attainment of majority, but that application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on the premise that the application filed for appointment on compassionate ground was not within time though the same was very much within the time, which would be evident from a letter bearing no.2781 dated 8.12.2007 written by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka to the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, wherein it has been admitted that the application filed for appointment on compassionate ground was well within time and the case of the petitioner needs to be reconsidered. This recommendation has been made by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka for the reason that in the year 1997, the petitioner had himself filed an application before the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka for his appointment on the compassionate ground and in that view of the mater, there would be no limitation in making the application even after six years of the death of the father of the petitioner as it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Pradip Kumar Mehta vs. Central Coalfield Limited and others [ 2006(4) JCR 184 (Jhr)] that the limitation would run after attainment of the majority and as the petitioner has attained the majority and has filed an application in the year 1997 itself, the petitioner deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel in this respect submits that as because of the reason that the relevant record was not available with the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on account of creation of the new district, he erred in passing the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure 6 and therefore, the letter as contained in Annexure 6 is fit to be set aside. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the light, as referred to above, the application filed by the petitioner in the year 1997 for his appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be time barred. Accordingly, the letter as contained in Annexure 6 is hereby quashed. In the result, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara within a period of three weeks and the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on getting the representation shall be taking decision in the matter of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of six weeks.