Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 797 (JHR)

Zeenat Parween v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-06

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.11.2013, which is annexed at Annexure-5 to this writ petition, by which the prayer for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The petitioner claims compassionate appointment on the ground that her father, namely, Ahmad Hussain Mallick while was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Trainer) in Jharkhand Police Service at Padma in Hazaribagh had died in harness on 20.09.2012. She states that she is the only daughter of her father and has to look after her old ailing mother and, as such, her mother has made a representation before the authority concerned to appoint her on compassionate ground. The said application of this petitioner was considered and rejected by the impugned order dated 11.11.2013. The ground set forth in the impugned order is that this petitioner is a married lady and, as such, she cannot be said to be a “dependent” within the meaning of the Rules and as such, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment in lieu of death of her father. 4. This order has been challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that just because she has married woman, her claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected. 5. During the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner produced a Circular of the Government of Jharkhand issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, dated 01.12.2015, to impress this Court that earlier Rule has been amended and the married daughters have been brought within the definition of dependent and now is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment. Basing his submission on this Circular, the counsel for the petitioner claims that her case be considered by the authority concerned. Counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of unreported judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay decided on 06.12.2013 in Writ Petition No. 11987 of 2012 Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) vs. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and Another, wherein it has been held that the claim of married daughter for compassionate appointment cannot be brushed aside. Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) vs. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and Another, wherein it has been held that the claim of married daughter for compassionate appointment cannot be brushed aside. Further the petitioner submits that it is not only her moral but also legal duty to maintain her old-ailing mother for which she needs compassionate appointment. 6. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner is a married daughter thus cannot be said to be a dependent in terms of the Rules framed by the Government of Jharkhand and thus, the order of rejection is absolutely justified and needs no interference. 7. The impugned order shows that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she is the married daughter and is not a dependent as per Rules prevalent at the time of rejection, which did not provide for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the married daughter. The amended/ new Rules dated 01.12.2015 bring within its ambit a married daughter as a dependent of deceased employee with a rider that at the time of death of the employee the married daughter should be fully dependent on the deceased. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a married daughter. In the case in hands, there is nothing on record to show that the married daughter was fully dependent on the deceased. Nor there is any averment to that effect in the writ petition. There is nothing on record to suggest whether the petitioner or her husband, at the time of death of the employee, namely, Ahmad Hussain Mallick was dependent on him. During the course of argument, it has been submitted that the husband of the petitioner is a businessman. This clearly goes to show that neither the petitioner nor her husband was dependent upon the deceased. 9. That being so, the case of the petitioner cannot fall within the amended/new definition of “dependent” as per new Rules dated 01.12.2015. The judgment cited by the petitioner also is of no help to him on the facts of this case. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the four corner of the Rules framed by the State for compassionate appointment. 10. The judgment cited by the petitioner also is of no help to him on the facts of this case. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the four corner of the Rules framed by the State for compassionate appointment. 10. Thus, on the facts stated above, since the petitioner was not dependent upon the deceased nor her husband was dependent upon the deceased, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 11. This writ application, thus, stands dismissed. Application dismissed.