Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 977 (JHR)

Artemas Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-08-19

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ application has been listed today on I.A. No. 5411/13 preferred by the private respondent i.e. respondent no. 5 with averments that the Title Appeal No. 15/11 preferred by her, has been allowed by judgment dated 17th July 2012. Respondent No. 5 had earlier instituted a Title Suit No. 7/08 with prayers that she be declared as legally wedded wife of late Shaid Marandi; that she being the widow is also entitled to all the benefits of a Government Servant after his death along with second dependent (present petitioner); that the dependent-second party i.e. the present petitioner cannot claim the benefits of late Shaid Marandi; that on such adjudication, the plaintiff be allowed adequate service in place of Shaid Marandi, the amount of pension, provident fund dues of late Shaid Marandi and all the benefits of a Government Servant which these legal heirs of the deceased Government employee is entitled. 3. The said suit was however dismissed on contest by judgment and decree dated 30th June 2011 and 30th July 2011 respectively by the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Sahebganj. However, the Title Appeal No. 15/11 has been allowed in favour of the respondent no. 5 by judgment dated 17th July 2012. Therefore, the official respondents i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj be directed to grant her compassionate appointment and to pay the post retirement benefits such as provident fund dues and other arrears with statutory interest thereon. 4. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that by the judgment passed in Title Appeal No. 15/11, the respondent no. 5/plaintiff-appellant was held to be the legally wedded second wife of late Shaid Marandi and she is entitled to the benefits, as accrued after the death of her husband late Shaid Marandi, including her step son i.e. the present petitioner. Both are entitled to the amount of pension, PPF and other retiral benefits being the legal heirs of the deceased Shaid Marandi. It is the contention of the petitioner that even the Appellate Court did not pass the decree in relation to the claim of the plaintiff (respondent no. 5) for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of the deceased employee Shaid Marandi. It is the contention of the petitioner that even the Appellate Court did not pass the decree in relation to the claim of the plaintiff (respondent no. 5) for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of the deceased employee Shaid Marandi. He also submits by relying upon Annexure-4 to the writ application that even in the representation made on her behalf, she had only sought for death-cum-retiral benefits and no claim for compassionate appointment was made. He also submits that the respondent no. 5 is overage by now. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition was preferred on account of decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Sahebganj dated 21st May 2008 whereunder the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was kept in abeyance, till final order is passed in Title Suit No. 7/08. The petitioner had preferred an application for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father who died in harness while working as Chaukidar in the office of District Welfare Department at Sahebganj on 30th April 2007. He has also made an application for payment of provident fund dues and other arrears along with statutory interest. Counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that in the wake of findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court as also relied by the private respondent, at best, she would be entitled to the proportionate benefit of death-cum-retiral dues and not the compassionate appointment. 6. Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, submits that the issue relating to the compassionate appointment for which the present petitioner had moved this Court, was kept in abeyance in view of Title Suit being contested between the parties. However, learned counsel for the respondent State, at this Stage, is not able to dispute the fact that the Title Appeal preferred by the respondent no. 5 has been decreed in her favour, copy of which has also been annexed to the I.A. No. 5411/13. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties. In the aforesaid background of the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, without commenting upon the rival claims of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent no. 5, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties. In the aforesaid background of the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, without commenting upon the rival claims of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent no. 5, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 - The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to take an informed decision in the matter of compassionate appointment which is kept in abeyance, in view of the order dated 21st May 2008, as also in respect of claim of death-cum-retirement dues i.e. provident fund and other arrears with statutory interest claimed by the petitioner as well as by the respondent no. 5. It would be open to the respondent no. 5 also to make her claim before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj in respect of the arrears of post retirement benefits such as provident fund and other statutory dues as also to show that she had any subsisting claim for compassionate appointment as claimed by her which is permitted within the time frame prescribed under the Departmental Circular which guide the matters relating to the decision of compassionate appointment. The respondent no. 2 in such circumstances, shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no. 5 and thereafter, proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law and taking into account all relevant materials as also the judgment rendered by the Title Court as also by the Appellate Court which have been referred to herein above. Let the aforesaid decision be taken within a period of fourteen weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that any observation made herein above, shall not be treated as comment on the merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. I.A. No. 5411/13 also stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.