Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1171 (JHR)

Mona Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-29

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : Counsel for the J.C. to A.A.G is presenting the supplementary affidavit, which is filed pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2016. The same is accepted and kept on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground of death of her mother, who was an employee in Primary Health Centre, Palojori in the district of Deoghar. Further prayer has been made to quash annexure-5 i.e. Communication dated 09.06.2010, by which the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was less than 18 years on the date of death, of her mother and even on the date of her application, she has not attend 18 years of age. 4. Abha Kumari, the mother, died on 01.11.2002, in harness. The petitioner, claims herself to be the only daughter, applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 22.09.2007. The meeting of the District Appointment Committee, for compassionate appointment, was held on 11.01.2010 wherein the case of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the application was filed well within five years from the date of death of the deceased, but at the time of death, she was a minor and even after 5 years from the date of death, she had only completed 17 years 2 months 21 days. A letter was written by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to the Principal Secretary, Personal, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa Deptt. Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, stating that though the petitioner was only 17 years 2 months 21 days after 5 years from the date of death of the deceased, yet on the date of the meeting of the Compassionate Appointment Committee, she had became major as her age was 19 years 5 months 6 days. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner recommended to consider the case of the petitioner. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 19.02.2011 the case of the petitioner was rejected. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, it is admitted that at the time of death the petitioner was a minor and she only attained majority on some time in the year, 2008. He submits that her case was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that she had attained majority, on the date her case was duly considered by the Committee. He submits that her case was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that she had attained majority, on the date her case was duly considered by the Committee. The petitioner also brought on record two specific instance, one of Rajendra Kumar Das and another of Prakash Chandra Mandal, in whose cases, though those claimants were minor, they were appointed after they attained majority. On this ground the counsel for the petitioner claims, that the petitioner, also be appointed on compassionate ground. 6. Learned A.A.G. submits that, it is admitted that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of her mother. By filing a supplementary counter-affidavit, the State tried to justify the appointment of the respondents 5 and 6, on the ground that their father died of lightening and thundering, a natural calamity, that to the school. Solely on this reason, their case was especially considered, and they were appointed. 7. After perusing the record the following facts are admitted:- (i) The mother of the petitioner died on 01.11.2002. (ii) Date of birth of this petitioner is 05.08.1990. (iii) The petitioner made an application on 22.09.2007. (iv) The petitioner attained majority on 05.08.2008 (v) on the date when the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee the age of the petitioner was 19 years 5 months 6 days (vi) The petitioner had applied within 5 years from the date of death of her mother. (vii) Rajendra Kumar Das and Prakash Chandra Mandal, who were appointed on compassionate ground, were also minor at the time when their respective father expired and also did not attain majority within 5 years from the date of death of their father, which is the case of the petitioner also. 8. It is admitted that the petitioner's case was taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. On the date of consideration, she was 19 years 5 months 6 days. The respondent has relied upon a Circular vide Memo No. 742 dated 15.02.2007 by the Personnel Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, which provides that a person below the age of 18 years cannot be appointed. On going through the said circular, I find that the same is a rules for appointment of the drivers. 9. The respondent has relied upon a Circular vide Memo No. 742 dated 15.02.2007 by the Personnel Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, which provides that a person below the age of 18 years cannot be appointed. On going through the said circular, I find that the same is a rules for appointment of the drivers. 9. Learned A.A.G further submits that for a government servant, minimum age prescribed, for appointment, is 18 years and the petitioner could not have been appointed before 18 years, so the case was not considered. This court is not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned A.A.G. It is an admitted fact that when the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, this petitioner had already attained majority and was 19 years 5 month 6 days, which is apparent from the letter dated 09.06.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, at least on the date of considering the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was major. If any appointment was to be offered, it would have been offered to a major person, not to any minor. 10. Further, I find that, the respondents have appointed two persons, after they had attained majority, though they also were minor on the date when they applied. The State cannot differentiate and give preference to two persons solely on the basis of the manner how a death is caused. 11. In view of the fact, I find that since on the date of consideration of the claim of the petitioner by the committee, the petitioner has already attained majority, she ought to have been appointed on compassionate ground. The impugned order of rejection, thus, is absolutely bad and is liable is to be set aside and is hereby quashed. 12. I direct, the respondent no.3 to consider the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the observations made in this order and thereafter, consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. This application thus stand disposed.