Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1933 (JHR)

Dropati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-28

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This case was listed before the Lok Adalat on 13.7.2019 for final settlement, on which date learned counsel for the petitioners failed to appear. However, learned counsel for the respondent-State along with Joint Secretary of the Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand was present on the said date and filed affidavit that already the compensation amount has been paid to the petitioners and as such, matter stood settled. 3. However, it was brought to the notice of this Court that since the petitioner had claimed compassionate appointment and as such, it should be referred to the regular Bench for final adjudication. In that view of the matter, the case was listed today and heard. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground since his father had been killed in an extremist activity. 5. The case of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass. The father of petitioner No. 2 was killed in extremist activities on 30.4.1996, in the district of Giridih. The wife of the deceased made an application on 2.5.1996 for appointment to 4th Grade Government post on compassionate Ground. Thereafter, her case was recommended for appointment by the then Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. However, when no orders were passed in pursuant of recommendation of Deputy Commissioner, the son of the deceased namely, Bhola Kumar Yadav made an application on 22.1.2014 for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment, which was duly received in the office of the respondent-Department. It is the specific case of the petitioner that several reminders were made to the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid and it was only on 5.8.2014, the petitioner No. 2 came to know that his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent-authorities.' Assailing the impugned order dated 5.8.2014, the instant writ petition has been preferred. 6. Mr. Tripurari Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 2 is entitled for compassionate appointment in view of the new circular of the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel further argues that as the death of his father occurred in the State of Jharkhand, latest circular of the State of Jharkhand shall come into play and petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel further argues that as the death of his father occurred in the State of Jharkhand, latest circular of the State of Jharkhand shall come into play and petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Smt. Shashikalabai vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 706 . 7. On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that death of the father of petitioner No. 2 occurred in the erstwhile State of Bihar and at the time of death, there was no provision for any compassionate appointment and as such, the case of his mother was not considered for compassionate appointment, which was in accordance with law and the case of the petitioner No. 2 was rejected on 5.8.2014 on the ground that the same is not maintainable as death occurred in the erstwhile State of Bihar. Learned counsel further argues that as' the petitioner has survived for more than 25 years, no appointment could have been given to the petitioner and the impugned order is justified. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Jalour Singh & Ors., reported in (2008)2 SCC 660 . 8. 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 case of petitioner No. 1 was already considered and she was granted monetary compensation, as per the rules available at the time of occurrence. Petitioners have knocked the door of this Court for compassionate appointment after more than 20 years. The delay has not been explained as to why the petitioners have approached this Court after 20 long years. Law is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a right of a person, rather, to show compassion and to meet the hardship, the same is considered, which is in total violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The delay has not been explained as to why the petitioners have approached this Court after 20 long years. Law is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a right of a person, rather, to show compassion and to meet the hardship, the same is considered, which is in total violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all applicable in the instant case, as the same talks of monetary compensation and not compassionate appointment. 9. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, no case is made out for interference. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.