Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 790 (JHR)

Ranju Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-06

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.11.2013 issued by the under secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, by which the compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been turned down on the ground that the petitioner is the married daughter and is not a 'dependent' as per the Scheme. The petitioner claims that the impugned order is absolutely bad and just because she is a married daughter her case could not have been rejected. She further claims that a married daughter has also right to be appointed on compassionate ground if her parents die in harness. Counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit and has submitted that a married daughter, as per the Scheme is not a 'dependent' and, as such, the impugned order has rightly been passed by the authority concerned. Counsel for the respondents relies upon a Circular of the State of Bihar dated 05.10.1991, which is issued by the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Bihar (adopted by the Government of Jharkhand), wherein it has been mentioned clearly that following persons are treated to be a dependent of the deceased :-(1) widow, (2) son, (3) unmarried daughter and (4) widow of a son. Relying on the said Circular counsel for the respondents submits that since the married daughter has not been included within the definition of dependent for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment, this petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Government of Jharkhand has formulated a new Scheme in the year 2015 and as per the new Scheme a married daughter is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground also. I have heard the counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner is the daughter of late Janardan Pandit. The said Janardan Pandit was appointed on the post of typist in Kadwan Dam Circle, Garhwa in the year 1987 and died in harness on 07.02.2012. The petitioner claims that as her father died in harness she is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground for which she has filed an application. The said application was rejected by the impugned order as a result of which this writ application has been filed. The petitioner claims that as her father died in harness she is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground for which she has filed an application. The said application was rejected by the impugned order as a result of which this writ application has been filed. The ground of rejection is that this petitioner is a married lady. The ground for challenging the said order by the petitioner is that a married lady cannot be debarred for being appointed on compassionate ground. Counsel for the petitioner do not dispute the fact that she is a married daughter. Further in the petition, the petitioner has never mentioned whether her husband has deserted her or she is a divorcée or she is not maintained by her husband. In absence of these statements it can safely be inferred that the petitioner is living with her husband and she is being maintained by him. The Circular annexed in the counter affidavit, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents do not include a married daughter as a dependent of the deceased employee. Further new Circular, which was placed before me during the course of argument, suggests that only a daughter, who has been deserted or divorced by her husband and fully dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his death, will be considered as a 'dependent' for the purpose of compassionate appointment. In the instant case as noted that no where the petitioner has mentioned, whether she is divorcée nor she has mentioned whether she has been deserted by her husband nor she stated that she is not being maintained by her husband. Since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was fully dependent on the deceased at the time of his death -3 even if she is married, I find that the impugned order is absolutely justified and needs no interference. Since the petitioner has miserably failed to make out her case for compassionate appointment in her favour nor brought her within the four corner of any of the Schemes, this writ petition is dismissed.