Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1014 (JHR)

Ranjit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-01

ANANDA SEN

body2017
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State at length. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner is challenging the order issued vide Memo No. 313 dated 05.02.2007, whereby the claim for grant of compassionate appointment of the petitioner stood rejected. 3. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the Forest Department in the State of Jharkhand and died in harness on 31.12.1996. The petitioner claims that he has passed Class VII and has also passed Class IX later. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment annexing the certificate showing that he has passed Class VII some time in the year 1998. Again the mother of this petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on behalf of the petitioner annexing the certificate showing that the petitioner has passed Class IX. The first application for grant of compassionate appointment, which was filed in the year 1998 stood rejected on the ground that he did not qualify to be considered for the compassionate appointment as he did not possess the requisite qualification. The second application was filed, which was rejected by the impugned order considering the earlier rejection and has taken into consideration the discrepancy in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. The date of birth in both the certificates are different. In the first application, where the petitioner was shown to have passed Class VII shows his date of birth as 14.09.1978, whereas in the second application, which suggests that the petitioner has passed Class IX, reflects his date of birth as 11.08.1981. 4. Thus, there is a dispute in respect of date of birth of this petitioner. This clearly shows that the certificates, which have been produced on behalf of the petitioner before the Committee does not depict the correct picture in respect of his date of birth and one of them is definitely a manufactured document for the purpose of obtaining employment. 5. Further from the record it is clear that the father of this petitioner died on 31.12.1996 and now more than 20 years have passed from the death of his father and for this long period of 20 years the petitioner's family has survived. Thus there remains no compassion. 6. 5. Further from the record it is clear that the father of this petitioner died on 31.12.1996 and now more than 20 years have passed from the death of his father and for this long period of 20 years the petitioner's family has survived. Thus there remains no compassion. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412 , has held as follows: "The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case." 7. Further in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner, who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. 8. Applying the aforesaid two ratios, I find that 20 years have passed since the date of death of the father of this petitioner, thus, there exists no immediate hardship. Further I find that the petitioner was a minor on the date of death of his father. There is no rule to reserve a post till the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years. In the case of Sanjay Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time the petitioner becomes major after number of years, unless, there are some specific provisions. In this case, admittedly, there is no specific provision to keep a post reserved. 9. In the case of Sanjay Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time the petitioner becomes major after number of years, unless, there are some specific provisions. In this case, admittedly, there is no specific provision to keep a post reserved. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact and the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no merit in this case. 10. This application is, thus, dismissed.