The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2691 of 2023 --------- Abhishek Kumar Singh (Age 28 years) s/o late Paras Nath Singh, R/O- vill.-Tandwa, PO+PS+Dist.-Garhwa (Jharkhand). Versus ....Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. The Deputy commissioner, Gumla, PO+PS+Dist.- Gumla; 3. The Additional Collector, Gumla, PO+PS+Dist.- Gumla; 4. The District Establishment Deputy Collector, Gumla, PO+PS+Dist.-Gumla; 5. The Secretary, Department of Drinking Water & Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda Ranchi, PO+PS-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi; 6. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Office of Chief Engineer, Ranchi, PO+PS-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi; 7. The Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda Ranchi, PO+PS- Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi; 8. The Executive Engineer, Water ways Department, Chainpur, PO+PS-Chainpur, Dist.-Gumla; 9. The Chief Engineer, Water ways Department, Dhurwa, PO+PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi; 10. The Superintendent Engineer, Water ways Department, Gumla, PO+PS+Dist.-Gumla. --------- ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4718 of 2017 after rejection of his claim for the first time and the same was withdrawn. He again pursued his matter before the respondent authorities for compassionate appointment; as such, the same itself was not maintainable, however, a ground has been taken that the requisite qualification certificate was submitted by the petitioner after more than five years; as such the same was rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after 2 going through the documents available on record, especially, Annexure-6, which is the order passed by this Court in earlier writ application filed by the petitioner being W.P.(S) No.4718 of 2017. For brevity, order dated 04.09.2018 passed in the aforesaid case is referred to hereinbelow: “ The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 21.08.2015 by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Admittedly, neither on the date when an application for his compassionate appointment was submitted nor on the date when his claim for compassionate appointment was considered, the petitioner possessed requisite educational qualification. At this stage, Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. This prayer is not opposed by Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned State counsel. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.” 6. After going through the aforesaid order, whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and for quashing of the rejection order dated 21.08.2015, which is Annexure-3 to this application also, was rejected by this Court. Further, from the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, it appears that there was no liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent. 7. As a matter of fact, the very second paragraph, there is a categorical finding of the coordinate bench that ‘Admittedly, neither on the date when an application for his compassionate appointment was submitted nor on the date when his claim for compassionate appointment was considered, the petitioner possessed requisite educational qualification.”; this specific paragraph has attained finality, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not challenge this order before the appellate authority or filed any review application to modify this paragraph. This clearly goes to show that the subsequent order passed by the respondent, which is Annexure-8, has been passed because perhaps, the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the concerned officer regarding rejection of the writ by the coordinate bench of this Court, because from the entire impugned order (Annexure-8), there is no reference of the High Court order. 3 At the cost of repetition, the coordinate bench of this Court has already observed that the petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification either on the date of application of compassionate appointment or on the date when the claim of compassionate appointment was rejected. Further, by perusing the order passed in earlier writ application; by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the petitioner was having liberty to again approach the concerned respondent. 8. As aforesaid, there is no reference in the impugned order with regard to the High Court order; as such, there is no hesitation in holding that so far as issue of compassionate appointment is concerned, it has attained finality on 04.09.2018 itself and any subsequent order passed thereof, must have been passed either due to confusion or due to suppression by the petitioner, which is not at all appreciated by this Court. Even otherwise, the order passed by the respondent (Annexure-8) does not suffer from any illegality, inasmuch as, the claim has been rejected on the ground of the certificate which has been produced by the petitioner was beyond the limitation period. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. vikas/- (Deepak Roshan, J.) 4
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, Adv. : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I --------- 04/Dated:-27.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that father of the petitioner died during his service period working as Junior Engineer under the supervision of the respondent authorities. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondents, whereby the case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondents, whereby the case for compassionate appointment was again rejected and the petitioner has challenged both the rejection orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-8, which is the second rejection order and submits that ground of delay has been taken by the respondents in not granting the compassionate appointment to the petitioner which is non est in the eye of law, inasmuch as, it is the respondents who have delayed the matter; as such the same ground should be rejected. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was matriculate and he has already shown the necessary certificates etc.; accordingly, impugned order dated 21.08.2015, by which the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected, as well as Annexure-8, by which the rejection for compassionate appointment was reiterated by order dated 17.12.2021 should be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-6 and submits that the petitioner