Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1119 (JHR)

Shanti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 11.9.2012, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the mother of the petitioner joined as a cleaner in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Palamau. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. The mother of the petitioner died on 18.6.2009 while in service. The father of the petitioner has already died prior to the death of the mother of the petitioner. Earlier the brother of the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground however, his claim for such appointment was also dismissed on 10.8.2010. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, but by the impugned order dated 11.9.2012 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she is the married daughter and she does not possess qualification of 10th Class pass. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner is a woman and she belongs to scheduled caste category, she would be covered under the Circular dated 10.11.1978. He further submits that para 2 & 3 of the Circular dated 10.11.1978 specifically provide that there should be reservation upto 3% in all categories of service for woman and since the married daughter would be included in the category of woman, the petitioner is also entitled for such benefit. He has further relied on a decision of “Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education), Kerala & Ors.” reported in “A.I.R. 2012 SC 2665” in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 21.” In Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011, the mother of respondent No.1 was working as a 'Teacher' who died-in-harness on 4th September, 1979. Respondent No.1 attained majority on 6th December, 1991 and passed her SSLC examination in the year 1993 and Teacher Training Course in the year 2003. Respondent No.1 then applied for a compassionate appointment as a teacher on 9th September, 2005 which request was turned down by the Manager in terms of his letter dated 12th June, 2006. The Manager pointed out that respondent No.1 was a married woman and thus a member of another family. Respondent No.1 then applied for a compassionate appointment as a teacher on 9th September, 2005 which request was turned down by the Manager in terms of his letter dated 12th June, 2006. The Manager pointed out that respondent No.1 was a married woman and thus a member of another family. The Manager also pointed out that the father of respondent No.1 being a Naval Officer the family income at the time of demise of her mother was beyond the limit prescribed under the scheme. He also pointed out that the application for appointment was belated having been made nearly 24 years after the demise of her mother. 22. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 appears to have approached the District Educational Officer, who allowed the claim made by the said respondent in terms of his order dated 22nd October, 2007. A revision was then filed by the Manager against the said order before the Government which was dismissed by order dated 27th June, 2009. Challenging the said order, the Manager filed Writ Petition (C) No.21384 of 2009 before the High Court which was dismissed by a single Bench of the High Court by order dated 12th November, 2009. Writ Appeal No. 2791 of 2009 preferred against the said order having failed, the Manager of the institution has preferred the present appeal. The very same order has been assailed by the appellant in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.6607-6608 of 2011. 23. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court was in error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Manager of the institution disregarding the fact that the prayer for appointment on compassionate basis had been made 14 years after respondent No.1 had attained majority. During the intervening period the respondent not only got married and settled down with her husband in another family but did not in principle qualify for compassionate appointment being the member of the family of her husband. It was also contended that the orders passed by the District Educational Officer and that passed by the Government dismissing the revision petition were unsustainable and ought to be reversed. 24. There is, in our view, considerable merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. The application filed by respondent No.1 was indeed belated having been filed 14 years after the respondent attained majority. 24. There is, in our view, considerable merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. The application filed by respondent No.1 was indeed belated having been filed 14 years after the respondent attained majority. No explanation, much less a worthwhile one is forthcoming, for this kind of inordinate and unexplained delay. Delay assumes greater significance keeping in view the fact that respondent No.1 has got married and has now settled with her husband comprising a separate family. The appointment of the said respondent may not in that view lead to any financial help for the other members of the family left behind by the deceased. While it is true that marriage by itself does not in view of the language employed in the scheme, disqualify the person concerned from seeking a compassionate appointment, the fact remains that delay of more than 14 years could itself prove fatal to the prayer for a compassionate appointment. The orders passed by the Educational Officer and the Government and those by the High Court in Writ Petition and in Writ Appeal are therefore unsustainable and, hence liable to be set aside.” 5. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected by the respondents and therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. As against above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner is the married daughter of Late Jagpati Devi therefore, it cannot be contended that any appointment given to the married daughter would provide support to the family of the employee who died in harness. He has further submitted that the Circular dated 10.11.1978 would not be applicable to the married daughter of the deceased employee. 7. On a consideration of the documents on record. I am of the opinion that neither the Circular dated 10.11.1978 nor the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of “Shreejith L.Vs. Deputy Director (Education), Kerala & Ors” reported in “A.I.R. 2012 SC 2665” would lend support to the case of the petitioner. The Circular dated 10.11.1978 provides for 3% reservation in the Government services and it would not be applicable for appointment on compassionate ground. Deputy Director (Education), Kerala & Ors” reported in “A.I.R. 2012 SC 2665” would lend support to the case of the petitioner. The Circular dated 10.11.1978 provides for 3% reservation in the Government services and it would not be applicable for appointment on compassionate ground. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also proceeded in a factual back-ground that there was a scheme and the scheme which fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not specifically debar the claim of the married woman, whereas, in the present case this is not the case pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that there is a scheme operative which also specifically allows the claim on behalf of the married daughter. 8. In view of aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.