Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1518 (JHR)

Amrendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-03

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.02.2018, whereby the case of petitioner for his compassionate appointment has been rejected in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (respondent No. 2). 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that father of the petitioner namely, Indal Prasad died in harness on 20.02.2003, while working under respondent No. 3 as Blood Transfusion Technician. After death of his father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 19.08.2003. His mother also applied for release of the amount of death-cum-retiral benefits of her deceased husband. Thereafter, the respondents vide letter dated 01.05.2003 asked the petitioner’s mother to submit Succession Certificate. In response to the said letter, mother of the petitioner replied on 12.05.2003 intimating the respondents that she was nominated by her late husband and the entire documents were kept in the office of the respondents. Inspite of the said reply letter, the respondents again on 15.05.2003 asked the petitioner’s mother for obtaining Succession Certificate and accordingly, petitioner’s mother obtained the Succession Certificate on 01.08.2006 vide Succession Certificate Case No. 64 of 2003, which she submitted before the respondent-authorities. Inspite of submitting the Succession Certificate, when the respondents did not extend the death-cum-retiral benefits, the mother of the petitioner filed W.P.(S). No. 4108 of 2009, which was subsequently disposed of by order dated 19.09.2012. After order of the Hon’ble Court, on being asked by the respondents, the mother of the petitioner has submitted Indemnity Bond and thereafter, the respondents released the amount of death-cum-retiral benefits to her. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the respondents with regard to his compassionate appointment, which was duly received in the office of respondent on 04.12.2012 but no heed was paid to his said request. The petitioner thereafter moved before the Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(S). No. 2542 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2014, whereby direction has been given to the respondents to take appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter moved before the Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(S). No. 2542 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2014, whereby direction has been given to the respondents to take appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. It is the further case of the petitioner that he submitted his representation dated 09.04.2014 before the Director, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi requesting therein to provide employment on compassionate ground in view of order dated 25.03.2014, passed by this Hon’ble Court. When the respondents did not take any steps in compliance of the Court’s order, the petitioner filed Cont. Case No. 633 of 2017. During the pendency of the contempt case, the opposite parties filed show-cause wherein it has been mentioned that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on 06.02.2018. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has thrown challenge to the said rejection order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 06/15.02.2018, passed in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents ought to have taken into consideration that there is absolutely no delay in filing application on part of the petitioner but delay has been caused by the respondents themselves by asking the petitioner’s mother to bring the succession certificate for getting the death-cum-retiral benefits. The petitioner is entitled for reckoning the period of limitation keeping in view a fresh starting point of limitation. The respondents themselves delayed in disposal of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment by holding several meetings in between 2016 to 2018 for considering the case of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, as no counter-affidavit has been filed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State is not in a position to say as to why the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. However on perusal of the records, learned counsel submits that prima facie it appears that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. Further, the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation inasmuch as he approached the respondent-authorities after 5 years of the death of his father. 6. However on perusal of the records, learned counsel submits that prima facie it appears that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. Further, the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation inasmuch as he approached the respondent-authorities after 5 years of the death of his father. 6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. The petitioner has approached the respondent-authorities for getting compassionate appointment after an inordinate delay of 5 years and as such, rightly his case was not considered. The compassionate appointment is not a vested right of the legal heirs of deceased employees, which can be exercised at any point of time. The object to give compassionate appointment is to give support to the bereaved family to come over the immediate financial crisis which it faces after the death of the earning member of the family. In the instant case, the petitioner and his family members have survived for more than 15 years and it is only in the year 2018, this writ petition has been filed claiming compassionate appointment, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. If soon after the death of his father, he had knocked the door of this Court and thereafter, inspite of the order of the Court no decision has been taken, the matter would have been otherwise. Further, the petitioner has crossed the maximum age for consideration of his case and as such, on this score also no right has accrued to the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a large number of decisions has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [ (2008) 15 SCC 560 ] has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and inconsistence with the constitutional provisions. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:- “16. ………………. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 138, has held as under:- “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 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.” 9. 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1979 , has observed that “for the first time in September, 1970 the appellant invoked the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging the legality of an order dated 21.12.1966. The writ petition was filed after a gross delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing it summarily. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 , has held as under: “Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I find no merit in the instant writ application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.