Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1339 (JHR)

Bijay Kumar Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-09

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Order I.A. No. 8732 of 2013 By Court-In view of the averments made in the application, this interlocutory application is allowed. W.P. (S) No. 317 of 2013 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction upon the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 08.08.2012 which also has been impugned by the petitioner by filing I.A. No.8732 of 2013. 2. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The father of the petitioner was employed under the work charge establishment on the post of Godown Choukidar in the year, 1980 and he was shifted in the regular establishment on 13.08.1982. The father of the petitioner died on 03.07.2005 and thereafter, the petitioner made application seeking appointment on compassionate appointment. The petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6665 of 2007 which was dismissed by order dated 25.11.2008 in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2005(3) JCR 9 (F.B.). The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 15.04.2009 however, a liberty was given to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondent no.2. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a plea that, since the father of the petitioner died on 03.07.2005 and a decision was taken by the Government on 16.07.2008 extending benefits to the dependents of the employee who was later on shifted to the regular establishment, the benefit under the said decision, cannot be extended to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the earlier proceeding, the decision of the government taken on 16.07.2008 could not be brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2005(3) JCR 9 (F.B.), the writ petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by this Court. The petitioner preferred representation, as observed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 46 of 2009 and the claim of the petitioner has been sought to be denied by letter dated 08.08.2012 on the plea that the father of the petitioner died on 03.07.2005 and therefore, the benefit of the decision taken by the Government on 16.07.2008 cannot be extended in case of the petitioner which is not justified. 6. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition as well the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by this Court, and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner had died on 03.07.2005 and therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that in the earlier proceeding the decision taken by the Government for extending benefit to the dependents of the employees who were initially employed in the work charge establishment and later on shifted in the regular establishment, was not brought to the notice of this Court. The claim of the petitioner was denied in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2005(3) JCR 9 (F.B.). From the impugned order dated 08.08.2012, I find that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the father of the petitioner died on 03.07.2005 and therefore, benefit under the decision dated 16.07.2008 cannot be extended to the petitioner. I am of the view that the plea taken by the respondent authority for denying the claim of the petitioner is not justified, when the Government itself has taken a decision to extend the benefit to persons like the petitioner. I find that the petitioner again, after the dismissal of the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal, approached the respondent authority by moving representation on 03.09.2011. By that time, decision dated 16.07.2008 of the Government was in forced. It was the duty of the respondent State of Jharkhand to bring this fact to the notice of this Court in the earlier proceedings, which admittedly was not brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents. I find that even though the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner would have been adjudicated by the respondent State in the light of the decision contained in letter dated 16.07.2008. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of letter dated 16.07.2008 within a period of eight weeks. Petition allowed.