Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 695 (JHR)

Julie Kumari Mehta v. Ranchi University, Ranchi

2011-07-19

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction on the respondents to consider her case and provide her employment on compassionate ground on account of premature death of her father in harness. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the married daughter but she was dependent on her father. Her father Late Vishwanath Mahto was a Typist working in P.P.K. College, Bundu, District Ranchi. After the death of her father petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment before the Principal. P.P.K. College. Bundu, but till date no decision has been taken. The Principal has not even forwarded her application to the higher authorities for consideration on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter and she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. The respondents opposed the petitioner's writ petition on the ground that the petitioner, being the married daughter, does not come within the definition of the dependent for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment and, as such, her application has rightly not been processed by the Principal. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compassionate appointment can be given only to the dependent of the deceased. The dependent of the deceased is defined. The married daughter does not come within the definition of dependent and, as such, the petitioner has no right to enforce the said claim for compassionate appointment. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is dependent on her father, even if she is married daughter, she is entitled to get compassionate appointment. Learned counsel referred to and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 493 . Learned counsel also relied on an unreported decision of Bombay High Court in The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Medha Prashant Parkhe. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has claimed that even if she is married, being dependent on her late father, she is entitled to get compassionate appointment. However, no provision has been brought before this Court to substantiate the said claim. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, heavily harped on the decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. The petitioner has claimed that even if she is married, being dependent on her late father, she is entitled to get compassionate appointment. However, no provision has been brought before this Court to substantiate the said claim. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, heavily harped on the decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. (supra) and Bombay High Court decision in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. On perusal of the said judgments I find that the facts in the said cases were miles away from the facts in the case in hand. Even the said judgments do not hold that the compassionate appointment can be given to the persons who are not defined as dependent in the policy decision. In the case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. (supra), there was tripartite agreement to provide compassionate appointment to one of the direct dependents of the employee in case of death due to accident in course of employment. In the case of Medha Prashant Parkhe (supra). The petitioner was found eligible. She was selected for appointment and placed in the wait list. After her selection she got married. Her services were terminated on the ground that due to her marriage, she was not entitled for compassionate appointment. That led to case in the Labour Court. The Labour Court ruled in favour of the petitioner holding that termination of her services on the ground that she got married after selection is illegal. In the instant case there is clear stand of the respondent that the dependents for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment have been defined in the scheme for providing compassionate appointment. Married daughter is not included in the definition of dependents. The petitioner has not disputed the said fact and contention. 6. In view of the said admitted position, I find no legal ground to entertain this writ petition. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.