Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4766 of 2009 ====================================================== Kirtiman Thapa, son of late Ganesh Bahadur Thapa, Ex-Chaukidar, Electric Supply Division, Saharsa, resident of Power House Colony, at & P.O.Saharsa, District Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Director of Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Koshi Area Electricity Board, at , P.O., P.S. & District Saharsa 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Saharsa Electrical Circle, at, P.O., P.S. & District Saharsa 5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division Saharsa, at, P.O., P.S. & District Saharsa 6. The Personnel Officer, Koshi Area, Electricity Board, at, P.O. & District Saharsa ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K.Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 15-04-2013 Heard the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground due to death of his father, namely, late 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.4766 of 2009 (2) dt.15-04-2013 2 / 4 Ganesh Bahadur Thapa in harness on 14.6.2005. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that deceased employee Ganesh Bahadur Thapa, father of the petitioner, was a permanent Class IV employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board ( in short ‘respondent Board’), working on the post of Chaukidar in its office at Saharsa and he died in harness on 14.6.2005. It is further submitted that in view of the Scheme of compassionate appointment adopted by respondent Board applicable for the dependents of the deceased employee, the petitioner, being son of the deceased employee, submitted his application in the prescribed proforma on 30.7.2005. According to the case of the petitioner, though he is eligible for compassionate appointment, being son of the deceased employee, yet for one reason or the other, his claim for such compassionate appointment is/was not being considered and decided by the competent authority of the respondent Board. It is contended that any order passed by the competent authority of the respondent Board with respect to the claim of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment has never been communicated to him. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court in the present proceeding as far back as in the year 2009, but the matter could not be taken up earlier for its disposal. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board resisting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present proceeding. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that the issue regarding compassionate appointment of the petitioner was taken up for consideration by the Regional Compassionate Appointment Committee of the respondent Board in its meeting dated 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.4766 of 2009 (2) dt.15-04-2013 3 / 4 24.7.2008, but in the list of family members submitted by the deceased employee during his life time name of the petitioner did not appear, therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment was not considered. It is further claimed that in other service records of the deceased employee also, name of the petitioner was not found there, therefore, claim of the petitioner was not accepted. According to the case of the respondents, in view of the reasons disclosed in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could not have been considered. However, from perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that order rejecting claim of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment has neither been brought on record nor it was ever communicated to the petitioner. After having heard the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that entire matter requires re-consideration by the competent authority of the respondent Board. The reasons disclosed in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit for non-consideration of claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment do not appear to be reasonable and sound. If the petitioner claims to be the son of the deceased employee, the matter could have been enquired into either by the competent authority himself or through some other Officers of the respondent Board. Even the petitioner could have been directed to produce the materials/documents in support of his claim that he happens to be the son of the deceased employee. Admittedly, that has not been done in the present case. For the reasons recorded above, the matter is remitted back to the Secretary of the respondent Board. The petitioner shall appear with a detailed representation and all supporting 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.4766 of 2009 (2) dt.15-04-2013 4 / 4 documents as also the certified copy of the present order before the Secretary of the respondent Board within a period of one month from today, whereafter, the Secretary of the respondent Board and/or any other competent authority of the respondent Board shall consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by applying the provisions of compassionate appointment applicable for such persons. If need be, petitioner may be directed to produce further materials/documents in support of his claim that he happens to be the son of the deceased employee. After consideration of all the materials, claim of the
Decision
petitioner shall be disposed of by the respondent Secretary and /or any other competent authority of the respondent Board, and if need be, by a resolution of the Compassionate Appointment Committee so constituted, by a reasoned and speaking order. If on consideration of the materials the respondent Secretary and/or any other competent authority of the respondent Board come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment, then consequential order shall also be issued without any unnecessary delay. Entire exercise must be completed by the respondent Secretary and/or any other competent authority of the respondent Board within a maximum period of six months from the date of appearance and filing of the representation by the petitioner before the respondent Secretary within the aforesaid period of one month. The present writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)