Chief Engineer, TTPS Lalpania, P.O. & v. P.S. Lalpania, Dist. Bokaro
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2307 of 2024 ---------- Monika Marandi, d/o. late Sohan Marandi, r/o. Bank More Lalpania, P.O. & P.S. Lalpania, Dist. Bokaro (Jharkhand). ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, TTPS Lalpania, P.O. & Versus P.S. Lalpania, Dist. Bokaro. 3. District Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, P.O. + P.S. + Dist. Bokaro. 4. Managing Director, TTPS Lalpania, P.O. + P.S. Lalpania, Dist. Bokaro. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner ----------- : For the Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, AC to GP-III 04/ 12.12.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2.
Decision
The order dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is under challenge by which the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. It is the case of petitioner that father of the petitioner, who was a permanent employee of the Tenughat Tharmal Power Station (for short “TTPS”) died in harness on 24.04.2009 while he was deputed on election duty. After his death, the mother of petitioner made application for compassionate appointment but her case was not considered and it was asked to submit application for appointment of her daughter. Thereafter, the daughter (petitioner herein) of the deceased employee made application for her compassionate appointment but after 9 years her claim was also rejected on the ground that she does not fulfill the requisite qualification. Throwing challenge to the said order of rejection, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 1 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly petitioner had requisite qualification to be appointed on compassionate ground but the respondents have rejected her claim illegally and arbitrary without considering the fact that petitioner was having the certificate of matriculation. Learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground since after death of his father the entire family of the petitioner is at the verge starvation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State justifying the stand of the respondents submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the order since application has to be made within a period of five years and at the time of submissions of application the applicant must have the minimum requisite qualification for consideration of his/her case for appointment. Admittedly, on the date of application petitioner was not having the minimum requisite qualification i.e. Matriculation and as such, rightly her claim was rejected by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed in limine. 6. Having heard the parties at length and on perusing the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that any appointment even compassionate appointment are made as per the Rules and the Scheme meant for appointment/ compassionate appointment. The respondent-State has come out with a Rule which shows that any application has to be made within 5 years from the date of death and minimum qualification for appointment is Matriculation. In the instant case, neither minimum qualification was possessed by the petitioner nor was the application made within 5 years from the date of death of his father and on both the scores petitioner fails. This Court is in full agreement with the order of rejection dated 19.11.2018. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a large number of decisions has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of 2 General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 560] has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and in consonance with the constitutional provisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under: “16. ………………. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 138, has held as under:- “6. ……………….. The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” the sole breadwinner, 3 8. From the aforesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that objective to give compassionate appointment is to give support to the bereaved family to come over the immediate financial crisis which it faces after the death of the earning member of the family. In the instant case, the petitioner and her family members have survived for more than 15 years, so the family member of the petitioner is not facing financial hardship. Further, at the time of submissions of application for consideration of her case, the petitioner was not having the minimum qualification of matriculation and as the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite criteria for appointment on compassionate ground, rightly her case was rejected by the respondent- authorities. 9. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4