Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 187 (JHR)

Babita Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-19

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to take appropriate action regarding appointment of petitioner no.1 on the basis of compassionate ground and further prayer has been made for quashing letter dated 02.03.2012 and also for quashing notification dated 05.10.1991 on the basis of which, the application preferred by petitioner no. 2 for employment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. The facts, in brief, is that Late Taneshwar Mahto, who was father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2, while serving in Minor Irrigation Department, Deoghar as Pump Chalak died in harness on 02.03.2010 leaving behind his wife and sole married daughter. It has been averred that since the wife of the deceased had crossed the age of 50 years, petitioner no. 1 submitted an application annexing all relevant documents for compassionate appointment, on 15.02.2012 but the same was denied stating therein that since petitioner no. 1 is married one she cannot be appointed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner no. 1 married to one Anoj Kumar Rao, who left his parental house and is living in in-laws''s house as a son and adopted as a Ghardamad and furthermore, the husband of petitioner no. 1 is unemployed at present also. It has further been submitted that since petitioner no. 2 had crossed the age of 50 years and is fully dependent on them and no other male member is there to look after the wife of the deceased, in such circumstances, petitioner no. 1 should be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the basic object and purport of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of employees, who dies in harness, is to overcome the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income. And by a notification, such basic purport of granting compassionate appointment cannot be swept away by the respondents and while considering the application of the petitioners for grant of employment to petitioner no. 1 did not consider these basic intent and purport of grant of compassionate appointment, hence, notification dated 05.10.1991 is liable to quashed and set aside. 4. And by a notification, such basic purport of granting compassionate appointment cannot be swept away by the respondents and while considering the application of the petitioners for grant of employment to petitioner no. 1 did not consider these basic intent and purport of grant of compassionate appointment, hence, notification dated 05.10.1991 is liable to quashed and set aside. 4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Canara Bank & Anr Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar , (2015) 7 SCC 412 . 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after death of deceased-employee vide letter dated 06.09.2010, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Design Division, Dumka Camp, Deoghar asked petitioner no. 2 to submit relevant papers for appointment on compassionate ground, on which, she submitted application annexing application for compassionate appointment for her daughter and same was rejected on the ground that as per notification dated 05.10.1991, she, being married daughter, is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of records, in particular notification dated 05.10.1991; it appears that immediately after the death of her husband, the petitioner no. 1 applied for employment on compassionate ground, which was turned down by the respondents-authorities on the ground that married daughter is not entitled to get such benefit. On perusal of notification dated 05.10.1991, it appears that petitioner no. 1-the married daughter does not come in any of the categories as mentioned in the said said notification for getting employment on compassionate ground. Hence, the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 cannot be said to be tainted with arbitrariness or infirmity or violative of any Constitutional rights; no relief can be granted to the petitioner so as to warrant interference by this Court. 7. Furthermore, it is settled principle of law that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right and in catena of decisions rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court, it has been held that Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits or humanitarian grounds otherwise, it would open up floodgate of litigation. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition, sans merit, is dismissed.