Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1612 (JHR)

Anil Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-06

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER I.A. No. 1524 of 2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application seeking condonation of delay of 200 days, that too, in a matter of compassionate appointment on the ground of death of deceased-employee who died in the year 1986. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. L.P.A. No. 212 of 2012 Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the merit of the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the employee died in the year 1986 but at that time the employee's wife was not eligible for appointment and the petitioner was of the age of 12 years. It was further submitted that the appellant's mother though was blind but she applied for compassionate appointment and her case was recommended for compassionate appointment vide Annexure-7 dated 25th August, 1993. However, no appointment was given to her. Thereafter, the employee's wife died. Then present petitioner, son of the deceased employee, submitted application for compassionate appointment in the year 1993 itself but no action was taken on petitioner's application for long period and ultimately vide Annexure-5 dated 16th January, 2002 the petitioner's case was recommended for consideration of compassionate appointment. However, vide order dated 24th December, 2008 petitioner's application was rejected holding it to be barred by time. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2448 of 2011, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 6th September, 2011. Hence, this L.P.A. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that petitioner's case was recommended by one of the authorities in the year 2008. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court at this belated stage. It has further been submitted that he has one disabled sister, therefore, respondents should have taken sympathetic attitude. 4. We are of the considered opinion that a welfare legislation is sought to be abused, may be by the petitioner or by the ill advice given to him that compassionate appointment can be provided to the legal representative of the deceased-employee at any time, may be after decades which is just contrary to the purpose for which the provision of compassionate appointment has been made giving departure to the normal rule of employment in contrary to giving full opportunity to all compete persons to compete for the public post. It appears that in such type of appointments inhumanely the corruption may be rampant and, therefore, either because of the corruption or because of the false sympathy the case for compassionate appointments are recommended after the decades and this is one of the example where even the deceased-employee died in the year 1986 and the wife of the employee was eligible for appointment and she applied for compassionate appointment and her case was recommended in the year 1993 itself but she was not given appointment. 5. Be that as it may be, the wife of the employee might have died in the year 1997 i.e., after four years of filing of her application and she could not get the benefit of the said legislation or the scheme. After the death of the wife of the employee the petitioner submitted application. From the documents placed on record, Annexure-8 it appears that the petitioner himself applied for the compassionate appointment but since he was minor at that time, hence his application was rejected in the year 1989 itself. Then, Annexure-6 dated 25th March 1994 discloses the fact that the petitioner's own application dated 25th August, 1993 was rejected on 25th March, 1994. Then, it appears that some favourable officer came to rescue the petitioner and ignoring all these facts vide Annexure 5 dated 6th January, 2002 he recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and issued direction to the Executive Engineer of the Department to recommend the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. However, the Superintendent Engineer vide order 24th December, 2008 rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. Not only this, there was non-application of mind of the officers or there may be a case of false sympathy or for other motive, the matter was kept pending. It appears that a letter was given to the Revenue Minister and he forwarded the grievance of the petitioner to the Secretary of the Rural Engineering Organization in March, 2008. Such type of grievances are received by the high officers and authorities and they are forwarded for the examination but absolutely in accordance with law and they are not and never recommendation for doing contrary to law or contrary to any provision in the scheme. Such type of grievances are received by the high officers and authorities and they are forwarded for the examination but absolutely in accordance with law and they are not and never recommendation for doing contrary to law or contrary to any provision in the scheme. Upon receipt of such type of recommendation even from the Ministers or authorities, the officers holding the relevant post is required to act only in accordance with law uninfluenced by the fact that the grievance came from the higher office as the officer competent to take decision is bound by rule of law and procedure and not bound by any recommendation of any higher authority is contrary to law. 6. We have given facts, as has been stated, in this L.P.A and coming out from the documents placed by the petitioner. It was expected from advisor of the petitioner to advise him properly so that he should not have tried to move here and there before several officers of the authorities and should have immediately approached the court of law and if his grievance is found to be genuine, the same could have been redressed in time by the order of the court lest such matter may become in-fructuous by passing of time. 7. However, in this case, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner's father died in the year 1986. Her mother tried to get the appointment but could not secure the appointment till she died. It appears that the petitioner applied much prior to the death of her mother as it has been mentioned in the documents the petitioner that petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and his application was first rejected in the year 1989 and thereafter it was rejected in the year 1994 (Annexure-6) and then he could get some order seeking recommendation of petitioner's case. 8. In view of above reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence, the L.P.A., being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.