Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 296 (JHR)

Dilip Kumar Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-13

ANANDA SEN, S.K.MISHRA

body2023
ORDER : 1. By filing this intra court appeal, the appellant-petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4937 of 2010, whereby his application for issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents and to appoint him on dying harness scheme, was dismissed on contest. 2. The petitioner in the writ application has challenged the order of rejection bearing Memo No. 431 dated 02.07.2010, i.e. Annexure-3 to the writ application. 3. The facts of the case, at present, are not disputed. The father of the writ petitioner was working as a Roller Driver in Work Charge Establishment. He died in harness on 10.08.1998 under the Rural Work Sub-Division at Bermo. The petitioner’s application was filed in the year, 1999. However, a decision was taken in the year 2009. It is further revealed from the record that the learned Single Judge relying in the case of Ram Prasad Singh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous cases reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 38 , which is a Full Bench judgment of this Court, held that dependants of work-charged employee are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since the petitioner’s father had worked for more than 9 years as a Work Charge employee in the permanent (regular) establishment, therefore, he can claim for regularization of service and in such case by referring to paragraph-80 of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment in the rehabilitation scheme. 5. On careful examination of the writ petition, it reveals that there is no specific averment that the petitioner’s father was appointed as a Roller Driver on 01.11.1988. The appointment letter has also not been annexed to the writ application. Only from the list of dates, it is reflected that on 01.11.1988, the petitioner’s father was appointed as a Roller Driver. It is not mentioned that his initial appointment was also as a Work Charge employee, therefore, we do not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Only from the list of dates, it is reflected that on 01.11.1988, the petitioner’s father was appointed as a Roller Driver. It is not mentioned that his initial appointment was also as a Work Charge employee, therefore, we do not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Moreover, the cause of action arose in the year 1998 and in the meantime, 25 years have elapsed, so at this stage, because of delay and laches, an order for giving appointment to the petitioner on the dying in harness Scheme cannot be passed. 7. Accordingly, we find no merit in this intra court appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.