Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1201 (JHR)

Birsa Bhagwan Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2016-08-03

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : I.A. No. 2310 of 2007 has been filed praying to amend the writ application by bringing on record the order dated 04.06.2007, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, by which the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order was passed during the pendency of the writ application, it is necessary to amend the writ application by allowing him to challenge the same. 3. Counsel for the State has no objection, if the amendment is allowed. 4. Regard being had to the nature of the claim and amendment sought for, I feel inclined to allow the petitioner to amend the writ application. 5. I.A. No. 2310 of 2007 is, thus, allowed. W.P.(S) No. 1678 of 2007 6. The father of the petitioner was an assistant teacher working in Primary School, Tonto Block in West Singhbhum. He died in harness, on 01.07.1987. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was pending at the time of filing of the writ application, but the same was rejected during the pendency of this writ application on 04.06.2007. 7. The petitioner submits that he has challenged the action of the respondents, by which the respondent refused to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and also challenged the order by which his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was admittedly working under the State and admittedly he died in harness. He submits that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment some time in the year 1989, which was kept pending. He submits that due to sudden death of his father, his family is in distress, and he now has to look after the entire family. He submits that if the appointment on compassionate ground is not provided, the entire family will suffer. He further submits that only when the petitioner has filed this writ application, the respondents have come with an order, by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. He submits that his case was rejected on the ground of delay, but from perusal of the letter no. 124 dated 12.2.1990 it would be apparent that the petitioner had in fact applied for compassionate appointment much earlier. 9. He submits that his case was rejected on the ground of delay, but from perusal of the letter no. 124 dated 12.2.1990 it would be apparent that the petitioner had in fact applied for compassionate appointment much earlier. 9. Counsel for the State submits that application for compassionate appointment was filed only on 23.07.1999, which is after 10 years from the death of the deceased. He further submits that as per the rules, a person has to apply within 5 years from the date of death of an employee. Since the petitioner has applied after 10 years, his case was rejected. He further submits that the document, which the petitioner is relying upon is not available in the record of the respondents, as such, authenticity and genuineness of the said document is doubted. He lastly submits that after 29 years from the date of death of the employee, no appointment can be granted on compassionate ground. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the father of the petitioner died on 01.07.1987. The date of birth of the petitioner is 20.11.1966, which is evident from the application for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner. The same has been brought on record by the State. Thus, as on date, I find that the petitioner is nearly 50 years of age. Further the petitioner has survived for nearly 29 years from the date of death of the deceased. 11. Since the petitioner has already survived for 29 years, in the opinion of this Court, he is not entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. Further I find that the application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner on 23.07.1999, which was brought on record by the respondents, which is nearly 10 years after the death of had taken place. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766 , has held that “once it is proved that in spite of death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. 13. In the instant case also, I find that the petitioner has survived nearly 29 years after the death of his father. 14. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred above, I find no merit in this application. The same is, thus, dismissed.