Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1187 (PAT)

Surya Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar

2013-09-26

RAKESH KUMAR

body2013
ORDER Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel no.15, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of remaining respondent nos. 3 and 4/Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “ the BIADA”). 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground on the plea that father of the petitioner died in harness on 06.03.2010, while he was working as Night-Guard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since father of the petitioner died while in service, it is required on the part of the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. It has further been pleaded that for claiming appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner has filed representation before the authority concerned, but till date no decision has been taken and, as such, direction may be given to consider the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that some of the clauses of Regulation of BIADA has already been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide Annexures 3 & 3/1 to reply to the counter affidavit and, as such, the respondents are required to examine the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. In this case, a detailed counter has been filed on behalf of respondents/BIADA. Sri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents/BIADA submits that service condition of the employee of the BIADA is being guided by its own Regulation i.e. The BIADA (Financial Service and Technical) Regulations, 2007. He submits that in the Regulation, there is no such provision for appointment on compassionate appointment in BIADA. He further submits that as per the Regulation, even on Class-IV post, no appointment is being made by the BIADA on permanent basis, but it has to be done on contractual basis through agency, as and when vacancies arise. He further submits that so far as consideration on the representation of the petitioner is concerned, on number of occasions, the petitioner had filed representation and the petitioner was properly replied. He further submits that so far as consideration on the representation of the petitioner is concerned, on number of occasions, the petitioner had filed representation and the petitioner was properly replied. He further submits that vide Memo No. 6185 dated 25.09.2012 i.e. Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, the petitioner was already intimated that in absence of any provision for appointment on compassionate ground, his case may not be considered. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that the petitioner has not brought on record any instruction or Scheme to show that in the BIADA, a person can be appointed on compassionate ground. However, while dictating the order, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to Annexure-5 to reply to the counter affidavit. He submits that number of persons were appointed on compassionate ground. This was clarified by Sri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents/ BIADA that all appointments were made prior to framing of Regulations by the BIADA, which was framed in the year 2007 itself. The Court is of the opinion that the appointment of compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right due to the reason that such appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, if an organization introduces some scheme for giving appointment on compassionate ground, only then one can claim for such appointment. Since Regulation, 2007 does not prescribe for appointment on compassionate ground, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. So far as stay order of Division Bench of this Court is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not satisfied the Court as to whether the Division Bench has passed any order authorizing the BIADA to appointment any one on compassionate ground. 5. In view of facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that there is no scheme in BIADA for appointment on compassionate ground, no relief can be granted .The writ petition stands dismissed.