Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 436 (JHR)

Masang Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2021-06-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father, who died in harness on 18.07.2011. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner, namely Buddhinath Soren was appointed as a Chowkidar in Beat No.1/8, Dhalbhumgarh Police Station and died in harness on 18.07.2011, leaving behind his wife and 4 sons as legal heir and representative. The petitioner is the elder son of the deceased employee. On 09.03.2012, the petitioner being matriculated from Hindi Sahitya Sammenlan, Allahaband, applied for compassionate appointment. Pursuant thereto, the Sr. Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide his letter dated 07.09.2015 has submitted his Enquiry Report in respect to compassionate appointment of the petitioner to the concerned Authority, but no final decision was taken. In the meantime, the petitioner got knowledge that the certificate submitted by the petitioner is not recognized by the Jharkhand Government, then he acquired Madhyama (Sanskrit) certificate in the year, 2017, conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council, which is equivalent to matriculation certificate. Soon thereafter, the petitioner submitted the same to the concerned authority and requested the authorities to consider his case for compassionate appointment, but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and no decision has been taken. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. However, during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents have taken final decision and rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that on the date of application, the petitioner was not having requisite qualification and the required certificate was submitted by the petitioner after 5 years of the death of the employee. 3. Mr. Shristidhar Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given his application for compassionate appointment in the year, 2012 itself and during the pendency of his application, he has submitted the required matriculation certificate issued by Jharkhand Academic Council in the year, 2017, therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Shristidhar Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given his application for compassionate appointment in the year, 2012 itself and during the pendency of his application, he has submitted the required matriculation certificate issued by Jharkhand Academic Council in the year, 2017, therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased employee and fulfills all the requisite qualification and as such, a direction may be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the case of the petitioner has already been considered and found to be non-suitable for appointment on compassionate ground and as such, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.09.2019. He further submits that even for appointment on compassionate ground, the candidate has to fulfill the requisite qualification on the date of representation and as the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite qualification/matriculation certificate on the date of application, his case was rightly rejected by the respondents. There is a gross delay in submitting the matriculation certificate by the petitioner, which was submitted after 5 years of death of the deceased employee. He further submits that even the order of rejection is not challenged by the petitioner and as such, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed on that score only. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased, who has died in harness. But this however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 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.” 7. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted his valid matriculation certificate, which is required for appointment in the year, 2017 i.e. after 5 years of death of his father and as per Scheme, there is a time limit of 5 years for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground. Though the application of the petitioner is within time, but at that time, the petitioner was not in possession of the valid matriculation certificate. 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 and it must be provided for under the Rules. 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 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. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, no case is made out for interference. There is no merit in the instant case. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.