Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 198 (JHR)

Sarahuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-07

D.N.PATEL

body2012
Judgment Per D.N.Patel, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for getting compassionate appointment, because of the death of the father of the petitioner, which has taken place on 13th December, 2002. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order, passed by the respondent at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, is in violation of the policy decision of the respondents, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited submitted that the bank has gone under liquidation and, therefore, it is unable to give appointment to any person and moreover, it has not appointed any person, on compassionate basis, as per the impugned order at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition. It is further submitted that a committee was constituted for compassionate appointment and the said committee has taken a decision on 22nd February, 2003 and thereby total five proposals, including the proposals regarding one Mishra and the petitioner, were taken into consideration, but, all the five proposals were not accepted, only on the ground that Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited has gone in liquidation and, therefore, unable to make payment of salary. It is also submitted that even otherwise, after the death of the father of the petitioner, enough time has lapsed. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC page-412; Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC page-192; & Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., as reported in (2009)6 SCC 2. page-481 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following reasons: (i) Father of the petitioner has expired on 13th December, 2002 and, as such, approximately a period of eleven years is over by now. (ii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. V. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC page-412, at paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6, as under: “4. (ii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. V. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC page-412, at paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6, as under: “4. Seventeen years after the death of his father, the respondent, on 8.1.1986, made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court and an appeal from the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State has filed the present appeal. 5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case. 6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed: “The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family.” (Emphasis supplied) (iii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC page-192, at paragraph nos. 2 and 3, as under: “2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar. 2 and 3, as under: “2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar. Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21-4-1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts. 3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. (Emphasis supplied) (iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., as reported in (2009)6 SCC page-481, especially at paragraph nos.11 and 12, as under: “11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constrains. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service.” (Emphasis supplied) (v) It further appears that Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited has gone in liquidation and, therefore also, looking to the impugned order, rightly the decision has been taken not to give compassionate appointment and, thus, no error has been committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition. (vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the employees of Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited have been absorbed in some other Banks and, therefore also, the petitioner ought to have been appointed and should have been adjusted in some other bank. This argument is not accepted by this Court, mainly for the reason that the excess employees are to be adjusted in another bank and when this Bank has gone under liquidation, additional burden could not have been borne by Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited and, therefore, rightly the decision has been taken at Annexure 3 to the 5. memo of petition, not to give further employment, because the Bank is unable to handle and tackle its own employees. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.