Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 299 (JHR)

Vinay Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Memo No. 07/Moo..../Stha... dated 04.03.2008 partly/portion of petitioner passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa/Respondent No. 4, in which the claim of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment has been rejected and with a further prayer to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in Health Department, Govt. of Jharkhand on account of death of his father during service period from the post of Inspector, Vigilance, Primary Health Centre, Bhawnathpur, Palamu. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The father of the petitioner was working as Inspector, Vigilance at Primary Health Department, Garhwa and during the service period, he died on 23.04.1982 due to heart attack and at the time of death, the petitioner was minor. After death of father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner had submitted an application on 26.07.1982 before the respondent No. 7 for her appointment on compassionate ground but she never pursued her case. Thereafter, the petitioner after attaining the majority and obtaining some education, had approached before the respondents-authorities in respect of his appointment on compassionate ground. On 01.11.2007, he submitted an application with no objection certificate of his mother and elder brothers for his appointment. It is alleged that the respondents have refused the prayer of the petitioner on 04.03.2008 without considering the grievance of the petitioner and also the rejection order has not been communicated to him. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached the respondent-authorities, he was communicated about the reasons for rejection vide letter dated 20.01.2009, mentioning therein that the claim was rejected on the basis of circular No. 4734 dated 19.05.1992 and hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, submits that the respondents-authorities have illegally, arbitrarily and unreasonably rejected the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground. The application of the mother was filed within time, i.e. the father died on 23.04.1982 and petitioner''s mother made an application on 26.07.1982 itself. Learned counsel further submits that when the mother was not appointed then the petitioner, after attaining the majority, applied for compassionate appointment. The application of the mother was filed within time, i.e. the father died on 23.04.1982 and petitioner''s mother made an application on 26.07.1982 itself. Learned counsel further submits that when the mother was not appointed then the petitioner, after attaining the majority, applied for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the ground of rejection in Circular No. 4734 dated 19.05.1992 is not applicable in his case because mother of the petitioner has already applied within time. 5. Mr. Dhanajay Kr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in view of circular No. 4734 dated 19.05.1992. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived as the circular is very clear that an application of any person on attaining the majority cannot be entertained by the Government, as the application of the petitioner was hopelessly barred by limitation and the same has rightly been rejected. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondents. The impugned order does not require any interference. The petitioner has approached before the respondents-authorities after 25 years from the date of death of his father for appointment on compassionate ground and 8 years after order of rejection, before this Court. The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking relief for compassionate appointment, which was not tenable in the eyes of law. The case of the petitioner is a belated claim and impugned order warrants no interference. 7. So far as the question of nature and object of appointment on compassionate ground, it is relevant to take note of what is stated by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana : (SCC p. 141, para 6) "6. ... the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. ... the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." In case of S. Mohan v. Govt. of Tamil nadu report in 1998 (9) SCC 485 in paragraph 4 which reads as under:- 4...the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Similar views have also been expressed in catena of decisions more so there is no provision in the State Govt. to keep a post vacant till the minor attained the majority like in other schemes floated by different organisations like Coal India etc. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition merits dismissal and the impugned order warrants no interference. Resultantly, the writ application stands dismissed.