Shalini … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Sahibganj 3.The District Superintendent
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 2488 of 2012 --- Shalini … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Sahibganj 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- For the Petitioner : M/s. V. K. Tiwary & Din Dayal Saha, For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sunil Kumar, J.C. to S.C. II Advocate --- 05/13.12.2013 Challenging order dated 05.11.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The father of the petitioner who was working with the Government of Jharkhand died on 28.11.2004. At that time, the petitioner was aged about 11 years. On 12.06.2009, an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made on behalf of the petitioner which has been rejected by order dated 05.11.2011. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed raising a plea that in view of Circular dated 19.05.1992 and and guidelines dated 27.04.1995, the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground made on behalf of the dependent of the deceased employee, who was a minor at the time of death of her guardian, is liable to be dismissed and therefore, the application made on behalf of the petitioner on 12.06.2009 has been rejected. It has been stated in the counter affidavit, thus; “That it is further stated that the state government 6. vide its letter bearing no. 3/C 2-60108/94 Ka. 2822 dated 27.04.1995 has issued detail guideline regarding process of 2 appointment on compassionate ground. In the circular it has been provided that a candidate can apply for compassionate appointment within five year of death of deceased employee. That it is also relevant to state that the state 7. government vide its circular no. 4735 dated 19.05.1992 has provided that in case of minor candidate their cases will not be kept pending till they are attaining majority. 8. That so far as petitioner is concerned he has not applied within stipulated time of five years, hence his claim has been rejected vide Memo No. 1321 dated 05.11.2011 and therefore present writ petitioner is not tenable and liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, though the petitioner was a minor at the time when her father died, the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made within the period of 5 years from the date of death of her father and the said application has been rejected by order dated 05.11.2011 when, admittedly the petitioner had attained the age of majority and therefore, the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground could not have been rejected by the respondent-authority. He has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Others” reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that application seeking appointment on compassionate ground made on behalf of a minor dependent of a deceased employee could not have been entertained by the department and since, the scheme of compassionate appointment itself is as an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, a person seeking appointment on compassionate ground cannot seek appointment as a matter of right. In the present case since the petitioner was minor at the time when her father died on 28.11.2004, in terms of the Circular dated 19.05.1992, the claim of 3 the petitioner was not to be entertained by the department and therefore, by the impugned order dated 05.11.2011, the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent-authority. He has relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Local Administration Department and Anr. Vs. M. Selvanayagam alias Kumaravelu” reported in (2011)13 SCC 42 and “National Institute of Technology and Ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh” reported in (2007) 2 SCC 481. 7. Before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the counsel appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate to discuss the judgments referred and relied on by the counsel appearing for the parties. In “Local Administration Department” (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, whether appointment on compassionate ground can be offered to a dependent of a deceased employee many years after his death and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that without considering the financial resources available to the dependent of a deceased employee and financial deprivation caused to dependents as a result of death of the deceased employee, simply because claimant happened to be one of the dependents of deceased employee, would not entitle the claimant an appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, from the impugned order I do not find that the respondent-authority rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is having sufficient financial resources. In “National Institute of Technology” (supra), the applicant was aged about only 1 year at the time when his grand father died and a dispute was raised that, the person for whom an appointment on compassionate ground was sought was not the natural grand son of the deceased employee, rather, he was a grand son of his cousin brother. The facts in the present case are entirely different and the judgments referred by the counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the present case. I find that the 4 ground taken by the respondent-authority for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. In “Syed Khadim Hussain” (supra), a case in which at the time when the claim of the applicant was rejected, the applicant had attained the age of majority and therefore, the impugned decision taken by the respondent-authority rejecting the claim was found erroneous. In the present case also admittedly, at the time when the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 05.11.2011, on the ground that in view of Circular dated 19.05.1992 the claim of persons who were minor at the time of the death of the deceased employee were liable to be rejected, the petitioner had attained the age of majority and therefore, I am of the view that the respondent-authority was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made within time. In my opinion, the relevant date would be the date on which the claim of the petitioner was considered and decided by the respondent-authority. 8. In “Shashikalabai (Smt) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 332, the benefit of higher compensation under the subsequent circular was extended to the family of the victim. In the said case the Maharashtra State Electricity Board initially issued a circular dated 5.4.1979 prescribing a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the family/dependants of the victim who died by coming into contact with live electric wire however, another circular dated 28.1.1993 was issued enhancing the compensation to Rs. 60,000/with immediate effect subject to the condition that cases already closed should not be reopened. The victim in the said case had died on 18.3.1991 however, there was correspondence between the parties and the case was considered only after the introduction of the new circular dated 28.1.1993. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “since the present case was not closed on the date of the circular coming into effect, the 5 appellant should have been granted benefit of new circular.” 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is quashed and respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner and after offering opportunity for producing relevant evidence in support of her claim. 10. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. R. Shekhar Cp 2 (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)