Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15697 of 2011 ====================================================== Md.Shamshad Alam Son Of Late Mahmood Alam Resident Of Mohalla- Mahboob Khan Tola, P.S. K. Hat District- Purnia .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department 2. Director General Of Police, Governement Of Bihar, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Purnia 4. Superintendent Of Police, Purnia 5. Deputy Collector, (Establishment) Purnia .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. M. Ehtesham For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Priaydarshi Sc17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 14-11-2013 The petitioner prays for setting aside the decision of the District Compassionate Committee (in short the Committee) dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure 6) by which his candidature for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the application was time barred as the application for appointment was filed 19 years after the death of petitioner’s father. Petitioner’s father died in harness on 29.12.1991 while working as Daftari in the office of Superintendent of Police, Purnea. Mother of the petitioner being a Parda Nashin lady did not apply
Legal Reasoning
for job. However, for the first time, she filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment of her son in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Purnea 23.5.1999. A copy of the Patna High Court CWJC No.15697 of 2011 (5) dt.14-11-2013 2/5 application is contained in Annexure 8. It appears that the said application was disposed of finally by the Committee on 25.5.2011 (Annexure 6). Claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay in filing of the application. The petitioner has challenged the said decision on the ground that respondents themselves made delay of 12 years in disposing of his application. He further submits that at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1991 there was no time limit for filing such application and he became major in the year 2000. He relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Brajendra Pd. Poddar Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1990(2) PLJR 668 as well as decisions of Hon'ble Single judge in case of Naresh Ram Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2000(2) PLJR 716 and Vivekanand Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2006(4) PLJR 45. Counsel for the State submits that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and much less after a long period. He has relied upon a decision in case of Union of Indian and another Vs. Shashank Goswami and another, reported in (2012)11 SCC 307. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner’s father died while serving as Daftary on Patna High Court CWJC No.15697 of 2011 (5) dt.14-11-2013 3/5 29.12.1991, whereas petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was filed belatedly only on 4.4.2011 on the ground that he was minor at the relevant time and his mother was a Parda
Decision
Nashin lady. It appears that the said application was disposed of on 25.5.2011. Compassionate appointment is granted to a family member of the deceased dying in harness to meet financial hardship caused by such death. The circular of the State Government of the year 1977 (in short 1977 circular) provides compassionate appointment, provided that application for compassionate appointment should be filed within two years of death of the employee. The said circular was superseded by circular dated 5.10.1991 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms waiving the barrier of any time limit. The petitioner had viable reasons for filing the application in 1999 as he was minor at the time of death of his father in 1991. No final decision was taken on his application and the matter was considered by the Committee after 12 years in 2011. The petitioner on his part ought to have moved this Court earlier. The Department on its part should have decided the matter promptly without delaying it exorbitantly. The petitioner has placed reliance upon case of Brajendra Pd. Poddar. The said Patna High Court CWJC No.15697 of 2011 (5) dt.14-11-2013 4/5 case would not be helpful to him as in that case, petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground was earlier rejected as he was under age at the time of appointment. On achieving the required age, when he applied again it was rejected again on the ground that since appointment on the ground of compassionate ground is to be done within 2 years as per Government of Bihar Appointment Deptt’s circular, the application was time barred. However the court noticed that by that time another circular had come into effect on the date the representation was being considered. The time limit for filing an application stood extended from 2 years to 5 years. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court held that the authorities would relax the limitation of age as by that time another circular extending the period for filing of application for compassionate appointment had come into existence. The case law relied by the petitioner in case of Vivekanand Singh and another would too be of no benefit as in that case, the petitioner’s service was cancelled after 11 years on grounds that earlier appointment was technically not correct. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was appointed earlier. In the instant case, I find that the respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it was Patna High Court CWJC No.15697 of 2011 (5) dt.14-11-2013 5/5 time barred. In fact the application of petitioner was not time barred as petitioner’s case would be governed by 1991 circular which did not provide any limitation for filing application. The matter is remanded to the Committee for fresh consideration. It is expected that the Committee would dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of this order. I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. I may like to point out here that if grant of appointment is not considered favourably on any ground that appointment is made to meet immediate hardship, it would be open to the petitioner in the facts of the case to move the Home Department, Government of Bihar for due consideration. The writ petition is thus disposed of. Shashi./- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)