Vimal Kumar Singh … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Deoghar 3.The Additional
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 7594 of 2012 --- Vimal Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Deoghar 3.The Additional Collector, Deoghar 4.Establishment Deputy Collector, Deoghar… … Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : M/s. Madan Mohan Pan & --- For the Respondents --- Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, S.C. III 06/20.11.2013 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for grant of pay-scale similar to the pay-scale which a similarly situated person namely, Manoj Kumar is drawing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner died on 29.04.2003 and the petitioner made an application on 21.11.2003 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. In the proceeding of the Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 17.05.2004, the case of the petitioner as well as one Manoj Kumar was considered together and the name of both the persons were recommended for the appointment on Class III post. Pursuant to the recommendation dated 17.05.2004, the name of the petitioner was sent for appointment in Irrigation department and the name of the said Manoj Kumar was sent to the Collectariate for appointment on a Class III post. Since the petitioner could not be appointed in the Irrigation department, another order dated 03.12.2004 was passed for appointment of the petitioner in the Collectariate at Deoghar. The said Manoj Kumar -2- was appointed on 30.06.2004 and the petitioner was appointed on 13.04.2005 pursuant to the recommendation made by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, Deoghar on 17.05.2004. However, the petitioner was not given the pay-scale which has been given to the said Manoj Kumar and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating as under: 10. “That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph – 5, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner's father Late Kamdeo Prasad Singh who was employed as Panchayat Sewak in Deoghar Collectariate and he died in harness on 29.04.2003, these are all matters of documents hence nothing to comment. 11. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph – 6, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that a meeting held on 17.05.2004 by compassionate appointment committee Deoghar and the petitioner was selected and his name was recommended for appointment of Class-III post in irrigation mechanical division. This is also matter of document hence required no comment. 12. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-7, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same are matters of official documents hence required no comment. That with regard to the statement made by the 13. petitioner in paragraph – 8, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that again a meeting was held on 03.12.2004 by the compassionate appointment committee Deoghar and vide Agenda no. 22 decision was taken for the appointment of the petitioner on Class III post. That with regard to the statement made by the 14. petitioner in paragraph-9, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same is related with the appointment of letter of the petitioner which is matter of document, hence required no comment. -3- 15. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph – 10 and 11, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that Manoj Kumar was appointed on 30.06.2004 on pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and the petitioner was appointed on 13.04.2005 on pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 as per Memo no. 1543 issued by Special Secretary Finance Department Jharkhand Ranchi dated 10.07.2004.” 5. Mr. M. M. Pan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, though the names of the petitioner and the said Manoj Kumar were recommended by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, Deoghar in its meeting held on 17.05.2004, the petitioner could not be appointed in time due to fault of the respondents and therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the pay-scale he would have got had he been appointed in time. He has relied on the decision in “Sushma Gosain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468, and in “Y. V. Raugaiah & Ors. Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors.” reported in (1983) SCC (L & S) 382. 6. As against the above, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned S.C. III has submitted that pursuant to a decision taken by the Government as contained in letter dated 10.07.2004 since the posts were bifurcated into Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk which carry different pay-scales and the post of Upper Division Clerk is a promotional post and since the petitioner was appointed after the said decision, the petitioner cannot be granted the same pay-scale. He has further submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and once a person has accepted the offer of appointment, he cannot raise any grievance thereafter in respect of the pay-scale. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that in the proceeding held on 17.05.2004, the Compassionate Appointment Committee, Deoghar has taken a decision to appoint the petitioner and one Manoj Kumar. The said Manoj Kumar was -4- appointed on 30.06.2004 and the name of the petitioner was also forwarded for appointment on 07.05.2004 itself, however the petitioner was not appointed by the department concerned and therefore, a second order was issued for appointment of the petitioner. I am of the view that the delay which has occurred in appointment of the petitioner was solely due to the reasons attributable to the respondents and for such a delay, the petitioner cannot be deprived of a benefit which would have accrued to the petitioner had he been appointed pursuant to the recommendation dated 17.05.2004. I further find that since the said Manoj Kumar was appointed on 30.06.2004 and the decision of the Government as contained in letter dated 10.07.2004 is a subsequent development, the petitioner cannot be denied the rightful benefit which had accrued to him. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. R. Shekhar Cp 2 (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)