Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1140 (JHR)

Gopal Kumar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-14

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying to quash the part of the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the District Compassionate Committee, Koderma, whereby the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. Further the petitioner prays to appoint him on compassionate ground on account of death of his father Gobind Ram, Ex-Gardener, who was working in the Koderma Forest Division. 2. Father of the petitioner, Govind Ram was a permanent employee of State of Jharkhand and was working as Gardener at District Forest Office, Koderma. He died in harness on 05.04.2009 (as per the petitioner, wrongly mentioned in Annexure 1 as 28.12.2012). Petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment in the year 2013. The said application was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, on 01.03.2014. After considering the same, it was found that since the petitioner was not a matriculate, his candidature cannot be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioner, thereafter, again filed a fresh application for grant of compassionate appointment, after completing matriculation, some time in October, 2016. The said application was considered and was rejected on 04.02.2017 on the ground that his application is time barred as the same was filed beyond 5 (five) years from the date of death of the employee Govind Ram. 3. The said order of rejection is under challenge herein. 4. Mr. Shailesh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed his first application on 01.03.2013, which is well within three years. He submits that his application was rejected on the ground that he was non-matriculate. He submits that the petitioner, after completing his matriculation, filed fresh application on 22.10.2016, which was rejected as time barred. He submits that for the purposes of counting the period of limitation, the date when the petitioner first applied, i.e., 01.03.2013, has to be considered. He submits that his second application dated 22.10.2016 should be treated to be in continuation with his first application, thus, the claim of the petitioner cannot be dismissed as time barred. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the first application of the petitioner stood rejected on 01.03.2014. He submits that his second application dated 22.10.2016 should be treated to be in continuation with his first application, thus, the claim of the petitioner cannot be dismissed as time barred. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the first application of the petitioner stood rejected on 01.03.2014. The petitioner, thereafter, again filed application on 22.10.2016, which, in fact, is a fresh application, and that being filed after 5 (five) years from the date of death of his father, as per the scheme of the Government, the same is barred by limitation. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the facts are admitted in this case. Father of the petitioner died on 05.04.2009. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 01.03.2013. The said application was rejected on 01.03.2014 on the ground that the petitioner was non-matriculate. It is admitted case that on 01.03.2014, petitioner was a non-matriculate. It is pertinent to mention here that on the date petitioner had applied, i.e., on 01.03.2013, the circular for grant of compassionate appointment provided that the claimant must be a matriculate. Thus, there was no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. 7. The petitioner, after completing his matriculation, filed a fresh application on 22.10.2016. The same was dismissed by the impugned order as time barred. Admittedly, the application dated 22.10.2016 is time barred as there is a specific clause in the scheme, that the application for compassionate appointment must be filed within 5 (five) years from the date of death. The petitioner’s argument that for the purpose of calculating limitation, the first application should be considered, cannot be accepted by this Court. The first application was dismissed as the petitioner did not possess the requisite minimum education qualification. Once the claim is dismissed and rejected, the same cannot be revived, as the petitioner had accepted the said rejection and had not challenged the same at any point of time. The petitioner filed a fresh application on 22.10.2016, this application for all practical purpose has to be considered to be a fresh application. The fresh application, admittedly, is filed beyond 5 (five) years of the date of death of his father. Thus, as per the circular of the Government, the same is time barred. The petitioner filed a fresh application on 22.10.2016, this application for all practical purpose has to be considered to be a fresh application. The fresh application, admittedly, is filed beyond 5 (five) years of the date of death of his father. Thus, as per the circular of the Government, the same is time barred. Furthermore, the second application of the petitioner cannot be said to be in continuation with the first one for the reason that the same stood rejected by a reasoned order, which was duly accepted by the petitioner. 8. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application and the order impugned cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.