Rajesh Kumar Son of late Harishankar Prasad v. Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman
2014-04-07
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
body2014
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner, in the present writ application, seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground to class-III post in accordance with the provision, as contained in office order No. 840 dated 19.04.2002 issued by the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. 4. The petitioner’s father was an employee under Bihar State Electricity Board. He died in harness on 27.11.2001 after serving the Bihar State Electricity Board for 36 years 11 months and 26 days (37 years). Had he not died, he would have attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2002. The petitioner is son of the said deceased employee and he made application for his appointment on compassionate ground. After considering his case, he was appointed against a class-IV post in the Bihar State Electricity Board on compassionate ground on 18.02.2003. The petitioner has still a grievance that he being a graduate, he should have been appointed against a class-III post in terms of the said officer order dated 19.04.2002. 5. Firstly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s father almost completed his entire service and remained in service for 37 years (4 days less). The petitioner could have been denied the benefit of compassionate appointment altogether, in spite of there being any policy of the Bihar State Electricity Board extending compassionate appointments to the employees dying in harness. In my opinion, as a matter of fact, no compassion was needed for the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner’s father died after serving the Board for 37 years. Claim of the petitioner now to appoint him against class-III post is against the very concept of compassionate appointment. This, in my opinion, would amount to abuse of the process of appointments on compassionate ground and will defeat very purpose of the scheme for such appointment. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.