Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1670 (JHR)

Jitendra Kumar Paswan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-09-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 24.11.2008 by which the application of compassionate appointment by way of representation by the petitioner has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for granting employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father who died on 18.8.2003, while on service. Factual Matrix 2. Father of the petitioner Late Jai Kumar Ram who was a permanent employee under the respondent No. 3 had died on 18.8.2003, while in the service on the post of clerk. After death of father of the petitioner he applied for his employment on compassionate ground before the concerned respondent as he is the son and dependent on the income of his father. On the representation of the petitioner the respondents made a query regarding the income certificate, other detailed certificates and other documents for verification. On the query made by the respondents, petitioner submitted the entire documents required for appointment on compassionate ground. After receipt of documents the representation of the petitioner was recommended to respondent No. 2 for consideration on compassionate appointment in place of his father but nothing was done and as such the petitioner has knocked the door of this court. Earlier the petitioner moved this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 4921 of 2007 which was disposed of on 20.6.2008 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law, the case of the petitioner was not considered and rejected vide order dated 24.10.2008 and as such this writ petition has been preferred challenging the said order dated 24.10.2008. 3. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment as he is the son of the deceased father and as such he should have been considered for compassionate appointment and the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected his claim without considering the fact that he was fully dependent on the income of his deceased father. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Sr. S.C.I vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He draws the attention of the court towards Circular of the State Government dated 22.11.1991 which has been annexed at Annexure-D, page 28 of the counter affidavit. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Sr. S.C.I vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He draws the attention of the court towards Circular of the State Government dated 22.11.1991 which has been annexed at Annexure-D, page 28 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit it has been mentioned that Personnel & Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department had given opinion vide endorsement dated 7.11.2007, which reads as under: "Hence in the light of the above, the administrative department may be given advice that in the event of the first wife being alive, the appointment of son born of the second wife on compassionate basis as per departmental Circular No. 13293 dated 5.10.1991 would not be lawful." 5. Learned Sr. S.C.I justifies the impugned order and submits that in view of the fact that petitioner has moved this court after long gap of time for consideration of his case of appointment on compassionate ground and the same has already been rejected, hence no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the considered view that this writ petition requires no interference on the following grounds:- (1) Father of the petitioner died on 18.8.2003, fourteen years have passed, the petitioner has survived for long years. No case for appointment can be considered on the ground of compassionate appointment after 14 long years. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 SCC (4) 138 has held that employment cannot be claimed and offered after a long delay and after the crisis is over. (2) The petitioner places reliance on a reported Judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 735, Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors . In that case it has been held that the son of the second wife is entitled for the retiral benefits/gratuity and pension. In view of that, the son of the second wife is also entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, this argument of the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this court. In that case it has been held that the son of the second wife is entitled for the retiral benefits/gratuity and pension. In view of that, the son of the second wife is also entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, this argument of the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this court. It has been held in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar "that government can grant retiral benefits/gratuity and pension after holding enquiry about existence of second marriage but nowhere it has been held that the son of the second wife is entitled for compassionate appointment." In the present case the son of the second wife has come for his appointment on compassionate ground after 14 long years which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules/guidelines/observations I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and hence, resultantly the writ petition stands dismissed.