Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1125 (JHR)

Nirmal Kuma Prabhakar v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-18

R.R.PRASAD, VIRENDER SINGH

body2014
Judgment Virender Singh, J. With consent taken on board for final disposal. 2. Appellant herein is writ petitioner (for short hereinafter be referred as the 'writ petitioner'). He, after the death of his father, who was employed in Ranchi Khunti Central Cooperative Bank Limited and died in harness, moved an application before the concerned Authority seeking compassionate appointment. The Authority concerned sat over his representation for pretty long period which constrained him to knock at the door of Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No.2825 of 2013 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.5 for taking appropriate decision on his representation. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents through counter taking various objections. The learned Writ Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 28.10.2013 primarily on the ground that the father of the writ petitioner had died in the year 2004 and that he (writ petitioner) approached the respondents by preferring application on 11.02.2009 which was belated, as such no action was required to be taken on such representation. The other point for dismissing the writ petition is that there is no provision that appointment on Class III post can be made without there being recommendation of the Board of Directors. Aggrieved of the said order, the writ petitioner is before us through the medium of instant Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Pragati Prasad and Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 4. At the very outset, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel states that rejection of the case of the writ petitioner on the ground of delay is contrary to the circular issued by the State of Jharkhand bearing Circular No.6817 dated 25th May, 1989, according to which, the dependent seeking consideration of appointment can move representation/application within five years from the date of death of the employee and in this case, the petitioner lost his father in March, 2004 and moved the representation in February, 2009 which was well within the time limit. On other aspects Mr. Roy states that for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, recommendation/approval of the Board of Director is not required. 5. Besides this, Mr. On other aspects Mr. Roy states that for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, recommendation/approval of the Board of Director is not required. 5. Besides this, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel stated at the Bar that he has got an information through Right to Information Act that the application/representation moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was also forwarded by the Managing Director, Ranchi Khunti Central Co-operative Bank Limited (Respondent No.5 herein) for approval of Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Respondent No.3 herein) and that the matter has been delayed at both the ends considerably which factual aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Bank. 6. Keeping in view the most vital aspect that the case of the petitioner could not be rejected on the ground of moving the representation/application at a belated stage on the strength of Circular No.6817, referred to hereinabove, which fact admittedly has not been considered by the learned Writ Court, we hereby set aside the impugned order and direct Respondent Authority(s) to accord consideration to the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within six weeks only from the date, copy of the order is made available to them, which primarily shall be the responsibility of the writ petitioner only. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank also volunteers to convey the order to the concerned without any delay. Needless to say that an adverse order, if passed, shall be communicated to the writ petitioner without delay enabling him to have recourse to the remedy, available to him. 7. Appeal on hand stands disposed of in the said terms at this stage itself. Appeal disposed of.