Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1694 (JHR)

Mohan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant, the State and the respondent-Bihar School Examination Board. The impugned order dated 27th November 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.3955 of 2014 affirming the order of rejection of compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner/appellant reads as under :- “Aggrieved of order dated 21.01.2012 by which the claim for compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been declined, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2014. 2. Father of the petitioner was appointed on 08.05.1980 as Photographer Technician. He died on 04.03.1993 in harness. When claim of his widow was not entertained, she approached the court for obtaining a succession certificate. In Succession Certificate Case No.08 of 1997 by an order dated 02.09.2005 it was declared that Smt. Sita Devi-mother of the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Thereafter, post-retiral benefits accrued on account of death of the employee was paid to the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted that on 27.01.2006 his mother submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment for him. This application has been declined vide impugned order dated 21.01.2012. 3. The petitioner was aged about 31 years when his father died. The petitioner has asserted that his mother submitted an application for compassionate appointment, but it was about 13 years after the death of his father. Succession Certificate case was filed in the year 1997 and it was decided on 02.09.2005. Today the petitioner is aged about 55 years. Evidently, he has crossed the maximum age for appointment. Even in the year 2006 he had crossed the age of 44 years. He has disclosed his date of birth as 10.07.1962. In the above facts, claim for compassionate appointment cannot sustain. May be a different reason has been given in the impugned order dated 21.01.2012, I find no substance in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.” Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the facts of the case and mainly urged two grounds :- (i) Delay in the adjudicatory process of the Succession Certificate Case No.08/1997 and procrastination on the part of the Department in entertaining the claim of the compassionate appointment during that period should not be taken adverse to the writ petitioner. (ii) On issuance of the succession certificate in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner, as legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, post-retirement benefits on account of death of the employee Late Kamini Kant Lal removed any iota of doubt about the identity of the writ petitioner as son of the deceased employee. The impugned judgment suffers from errors in appreciation of facts and law which makes it vulnerable to challenge. On the part of the State, learned A.C. to G.A. IV submits that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner shows his date of birth as 10th July 1962 and father’s name therein is Gouri Ram i.e. different from Kamini Kant Lal who is claimed by the writ petitioner as his father. Death occurred on 4th March 1993 and on account of dispute, only after a succession certificate was obtained by the widow of the employee on 2nd October 2005, death-cum-retirement benefits were released in her favour. Claim for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner was made on 27th January 2006 by his mother. The same was declined by the impugned order of rejection dated 21st January 2012 (Annexure-8) which also indicates that the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected earlier vide letter no.130 dated 6th March 2007 and letter no.529 dated 4.12.2007. Apart from that, writ petitioner’s/applicant’s father’s name was Gouri Ram in his educational certificates. When the claim was made in the year 2006, the applicant was aged 44 years and when the writ petition was preferred, he was aged about 52 years. Now he is 57 years of age. Earlier orders of rejection have not even been challenged by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Learned Writ Court has, therefore, refrained from interfering in the matter. Learned counsel for the Board supports the statement of learned counsel for the State to the extent that the name of the petitioner’s father was Gouri Ram in his Matriculation Certificate and his date of birth is 10th July 1962. Claim for correction of the name of his father made after 30 years of his passing out was declined. The claim is stale and therefore rightly rejected by the learned Writ Court. Claim for correction of the name of his father made after 30 years of his passing out was declined. The claim is stale and therefore rightly rejected by the learned Writ Court. In reply learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner was also a party in the succession certificate case where the locus-standi of his mother as widow of deceased employee was accepted leading to issuance of succession certificate in her name. Petitioner had made application for correction of the name of his father in the Matriculation Certificate after issuance of the succession certificate. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities of the State that Gouri Ram was maternal grandfather of the petitioner. In such a case, claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment due to the laches and delay caused by the employer and the long drawn proceedings in the succession certificate case should not be treated adverse to him. Therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant, the State and the Bihar School Examination Board and also the relevant factual matrix of the case, noted above. In this case, claim for compassionate appointment on the death of an employee on 4th March 1993 was first made on 27th January 2006 by his mother purportedly only after issuance of succession certificate in her name on 2nd September 2005 to seek death-cum-retiral benefits. Apart from that, petitioner’s credentials showed him to be born on 10th July 1962 and the father’s name being Gouri Ram. By 2006 he had attained 44 years of age and after rejection of the order on 21.01.2012 when he approached this Court, he was 52 years of age. Difference in the name of the father continues in the Matriculation Certificate as the Examination Board has declined to entertain it after 30 years of its issuance. The claim for compassionate appointment, therefore, suffered not only on the ground of delay and age bar, but difference in the name of the father of the writ petitioner/appellant as well. Claim for compassionate appointment seems to have been rejected earlier by the respondent authorities of the State as per the impugned order dated 21st January 2012 on 6th March 2007 and 4th December 2007 and he was advised not to make further correspondence towards claim. Claim for compassionate appointment seems to have been rejected earlier by the respondent authorities of the State as per the impugned order dated 21st January 2012 on 6th March 2007 and 4th December 2007 and he was advised not to make further correspondence towards claim. Those two orders/communications are not in challenge. Claim for compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule of appointment to public posts in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is dependent upon the scheme framed by the employer. Delayed claim is not entertained for the reason that the dependents of the deceased have survived the crisis. Even in the year 2006 when the claim was made, writ petitioner had become over-aged. As such, there are no grounds made out to interfere in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.