Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 177 (JHR)

Lal Mohan Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-01

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. As it appears from the order dated 1.09.2004, the concerned authorities of the respondents were required to file a counter-affidavit to state as to why the benefits of age relaxation be not given as per the Circular contained in Annexure-5 and in terms of the decision of this court passed in the case of Babujan Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand [2003 (4) J C R 676 (Jhr). 2. Though, the counter-affidavit appears to have been filed on behalf of the respondents, but no specific reply or explanation appears in the counter-affidavit regarding the query made by this court. 3. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner had applied for his compassionate appointment on the ground of his mother's service. The claim was rejected only on the ground of the petitioner having crossed the maximum stipulated age of 35 years in terms of Rule 54 of the Service Code. It appears further that the decision was taken by the State Government pursuant to which, the Circular (Annexure-5) was issued, whereby a direction was given to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the several districts to consider grant of age relaxation, under special circumstances, in respect of all those applicants who had prayed for compassionate appointment but on the date of filing such application, have crossed the upper age limit. The only condition as laid down in the Circular was that the application should have been filed within a period of limitation as stipulated by the Rule. 4. Counsel for the petitioner informs that in the instant case, application was filed by the petitioner within period of limitation and it was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order, on the petitioner's claim for his compassionate appointment, in according with the provisions as contained in Circular (Annexure-5) and also in accordance with the decision of this court in the case of Babujan Ansari (Supra). The decision must be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order and shall be effectively communicated to the petitioner. The decision must be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order and shall be effectively communicated to the petitioner. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State.