Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 133 (JHR)

Damodar Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2024-02-08

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the decision of the District Level Compassionate Committee, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa taken in its meeting held on 09.11.2016, which was communicated to the mother of the petitioner by the Establishment Deputy Collector, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide letter as contained in Memo No. 598(8)/Estab. dated 05.07.2017, informing that the petitioner’s candidature for compassionate appointment was rejected by the said Committee, treating the petitioner’s application as time barred, as the same was not submitted by him within 5 years of death of his father (deceased government servant). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Ramdas Hansda worked as forest guard at Ram Chandrapur Forest Beat Area and he died in harness on 19.03.1999. After the death of his father, the petitioner’s mother, namely, Salma Hansda submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground before the Divisional Forest Officer, Singhbhum Afforestation Division, Chaibasa on 13.06.2000, but no decision was taken on the said application. Thereafter, on attaining majority, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the same was rejected in the meeting of the District Compassionate Committee held on 09.11.2016 and the said decision was communicated to the mother of the petitioner by the Establishment Deputy Collector, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide Memo No. 598(8)/Estab. dated 05.07.2017 mentioning that the said application was time barred, as the same was ought to have been filed within five years from the date of death of the government servant. 3. It is further submitted that due to latches on the part of the respondent authorities, the appointment on compassionate ground was not given to the petitioner’s mother and now his mother has attained the age of 62 years. As such, she represented the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa with a copy to the Divisional Forest officer, Chaibasa Forest Division requesting to provide appointment to her son (the petitioner herein) on compassionate ground in place of his father, who died in harness on 19.03.1999, but till date no decision has been taken on the same. As such, she represented the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa with a copy to the Divisional Forest officer, Chaibasa Forest Division requesting to provide appointment to her son (the petitioner herein) on compassionate ground in place of his father, who died in harness on 19.03.1999, but till date no decision has been taken on the same. The period of five years for filing an application for appointment on compassionate ground needs to be relaxed, since no decision was taken on the application of the petitioner’s mother due to inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no application for appointment on compassionate ground was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa from the office of the Divisional Forest officer, Singhbhum Afforestation Division, Chaibasa, hence there was no question of taking any action on the application of the widow of the deceased-employee (mother of the petitioner). The death of government servant was reported to be on 19.03.1999 and the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground on 22.09.2016 i.e. after lapse of more than 17 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. 5. It is also submitted that as per Clause-10 of letter no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, the application for appointment on compassionate ground should be submitted within five years from the date of death of government servant. Hence the District Level Compassionate Committee rejected the belated application of the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner had filed application for appointment on compassionate ground within five years from the date of death of the deceased employee-Late Ramdas Hansda, however, due to latches/inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, she was not given appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground of delay. 8. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Others Vs. 8. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Others Vs. Paras Nath, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412 . In the said case, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed after lapse of seventeen years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The Hon’ble Apex Court while adjudicating the issue has held as under: - “5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.” 9. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar [ (1998) 5 SCC 192 ]. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” 10. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” 10. In the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar & Others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 112 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: - “20. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 11. It is now well settled that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to render immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. The same cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of consideration time when the crisis is over. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time the person seeking compassionate appointment becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are specific provisions on that aspect. 12. In the present case, first application for appointment on compassionate ground was made by the petitioner’s on 13.06.2000 which was though well within time but she did not pursue the same. Even if it is accepted that the respondent authorities were at fault in not considering the application of the petitioner’s mother, she should have moved before competent court of law for redressal of her grievance within a reasonable period, however, she failed to do so. The petitioner filed representation for his appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of more than 16 years from the date of application of her mother which was rejected by the District Level Compassionate Committee and the said order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner’s mother by the Establishment Deputy Collector, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide Memo No. 598(8)/Estab. Dated 05.07.2017. 13. Dated 05.07.2017. 13. In view of the settled position of law that the purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to render immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant, the application for appointment on compassionate ground filed by the petitioner after lapse of more than 17 years from the date of death of his father has rightly been rejected by the District Level Establishment Committee. The claim of compassionate appointment cannot be kept pending till the child of the deceased government servant attains majority in absence of any such provision. 14. In the present case, the specific stand of the respondents is that in view of Clause 10 of letter no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, the application for compassionate appointment is required to be given within 5 years from the date of death of the government servant. The said provision has not been controverted by the petitioner rather he has sought relaxation in the said provision by putting much reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 . 15. This Court has perused the judgement rendered in the aforesaid case, wherein the fact was that the father of the appellant had died in harness on 12.9.1991 and after his death the mother of the appellant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 2.4.1993 which was rejected on the ground that it was not in the prescribed format. The appellant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 7.9.1995 which was rejected by the authorities as late as on 12.10.2001 holding that the appellant was aged 13 years 3 months and 23 days at the time of filing the application for compassionate appointment. In the said case, it was found that the application for appointment on compassionate ground submitted by the widow of the deceased employee was rejected by the authorities without assigning any reason and when the appellant submitted the application, the same was rejected by the authorities after a period of six years giving wrong reason, as at the time of rejection of the application, he had crossed the age of 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Their Lordships looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case, directed the respondent authorities to consider the application of the appellant and to provide him appropriate appointment. 16. Thus, in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain (supra.), the application for compassionate appointment was filed by the widow of the deceased employee well within time but the same were rejected without any reason. Thereafter, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was also filed by the appellant within five years from the date of death of the deceased employee, however, his application was rejected on wrong ground that too after six years from the date of filing of the application. 17. The fact and circumstance of the present case is different from the fact of the aforesaid case. In the present case, the mother of the petitioner had filed application for appointment on compassionate ground on 13.06.2000 and thereafter she kept idle. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of more than 16 years from the date of application of his mother. As such the judgment of Syed Khadim Hussain (Supra.) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.