Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 427 (JHR)

Mithila Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-02

N.N.TIWARI

body2013
ORDER In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground. It has been stated that the petitioner's husband late Basudeo Singh, who was working as Key Man in the respondent Department, died in harness on 07.06.2010. The petitioner was solely dependent on the earning of her husband. She has no other source of subsistence. 2. According to the provisions and Government Circular she applied for compassionate appointment. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee considered the petitioner's application along with the other applications of the same nature and disposed of the same by resolution dated 28.07.2012. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that in view of the Government resolution no. 1859 dated 02.09.2011, she does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of IVth grade employee. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said resolution dated 02.09.2011 is not applicable in the matter of compassionate appointment as that was with regard to the general appointment. The claim of compassionate appointment is entirely different. Under the scheme of compassionate appointment, employment is provided to a dependent member of a bereaved family to cope with the sudden hardship due to death of bread earner. Learned counsel further submitted that at any rate, the said resolution dated 02.09.2011 is not attracted as the husband of the petitioner died on 07.06.2010 much before issuance of the said resolution. The rejection of the petitioner's claim, as such, is wholly unjustified. 4. Learned J.C. to G.P. IV appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though the petitioner's husband died on 07.06.2010, at the time of consideration of her claim, the said resolution dated 02.09.2011 was in existence. The claim of the petitioner was considered by the District Establishment Committee in the light of the resolution dated2.9.2011, but her claim was rejected as she does not possess the qualification required for appointment on Class IV post according to the said resolution. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. It is not disputed that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 07.06.2010 while he was working as Key Man in the respondents' Department. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. It is not disputed that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 07.06.2010 while he was working as Key Man in the respondents' Department. The claim of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The only ground for rejection is that she does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on Class IV post in view of the Government resolution issued by memo no. 1859 dated 02.09.2011. 6. Admittedly the cause for consideration of the claim of the petitioner regarding her compassionate appointment arose on 07.06.2010 and on that date, the said resolution dated 02.09.2011 was not in existence. The said resolution dated 02.09.2011 has not been made applicable with retrospective effect. In my view, the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of the said resolution dated 02.09.2011 is wholly unjustified. 7. Further consideration for compassionate appointment is altogether on different principle. Circulars are specially issued for that purpose prescribing the procedure and conditions. The claim for such appointment is not considered in accordance with the procedure and terms of a normal public appointment. 8. In view of the above, the rejection of the petitioner's claim, for her compassionate appointment is held to be based on extraneous ground and the impugned order to that regard is quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Ranchi, to consider and pass order regarding the petitioner's claim afresh, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.