Rekha Verma … v. 1. The High Court of Jharkhand through the Registrar General, Ranchi 2. The Assistant
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 2258 of 2020 --- Rekha Verma … … Petitioner Versus 1. The High Court of Jharkhand through the Registrar General, Ranchi 2. The Assistant Registrar, The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the Respondents --- : Mr. Anmol Deepak, Advocate : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate --- 6/20.12.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Anmol Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders as contained in Letter No. 833/Accts. Dated 28.01.2016, Letter No. 3262/Accts. dated 04.04.2016 and Letter No. 4217/Accts. dated 24.04.2016 whereby and wherunder the application preferred by the petitioner on 09.05.2014, 23.02.2016 and 11.04.2016 praying for compassionate appointment has been rejected without assigning any reasons. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent – authorities to consider grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of untimely death of her husband. 3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the husband of the petitioner namely, Munna Ram was appointed as a Peon in the establishment of High Court, Ranchi on 26.02.2003, but unfortunately, he died in harness on 05.12.2013 after a prolonged illness. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was the only bread-earner of the family and his death has plunged his family in penury. The petitioner has a nine years old daughter who studies in class III in St. Francis School, Pandra and financial constraints prevented her from regularly paying fees of the school. On 09.05.2014, the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment before the Registrar General of the Court which however was rejected on 28.01.2016 without assigning any reasons. This was followed up by separate representations dated -2- 23.02.2016 and 11.04.2016 which also resulted in rejection of her claim through separate non-reasoned orders dated 04.04.2016 and 25.04.2016. The pension payment order has recently been issued in favour of the petitioner but the benefit of pension is barely helping the petitioner and her family to survive. It has been averred that the petitioner once again made a representation on 29.04.2019 before the Registrar General for compassionate appointment pursuant to which the petitioner was directed to remain physically present on 07.03.2020 at 10:00 A.M. in the Chambers of Registrar (Establishment) along with all relevant documents. The petitioner had appeared on 07.03.2020 and produced all the necessary documents, but thereafter no order regarding her claim for compassionate appointment has been passed. The petitioner has completed her post-graduation in Rural Development from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and therefore, have the requisite qualification for such appointment. 4. The respondent in response to the averments made in the writ application has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that immediately on filing of the representation by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, an objection petition was submitted by the mother-in-law of the petitioner on 02.06.2014 intimating that the relationship between the petitioner and her husband was strained since 2009 and the petitioner had also filed a complaint case against her husband and her in-laws being Complaint Case no. C- 1781/2010 under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. The objection had also mentioned that the petitioner and her husband had arrived at a consensus for divorce on mutual consent, but before the same could fructify, the son of the objector died on 05.12.2013. The petitioner had subsequently enclosed the death certificate of the objector (mother-in- law) according to which she died on 22.07.2014. She had also submitted an application on 26.06.2015 annexing ‘No Objection Certificate’ signed by her in-laws. The matter was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and vide minutes dated 27.07.2015, a committee was constituted comprising of the Registrar General, Registrar Establishment and Joint Registrar (Establishment) and they were directed to submit a report before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for further action on the same. The -3- committee held its meeting on 03.08.2015 and in view of the averments made by the mother-in-law of the petitioner, the petitioner was accordingly directed to submit certified copy of the petition filed under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the order passed in the said matrimonial suit in compliance of the same. The petitioner had informed the committee through her application dated 10.09.2015 that only a draft of the suit was prepared and the suit was never filed and in support thereof she had also filed a written clarification of the concerned advocate. The committee in its meeting dated 18.12.2015 considered all the relevant documents and came to a conclusion that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is not fit to be recommended. The report of the committee was placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice and vide minutes dated 22.01.2016, the report of the committee was accepted. Consequent to the acceptance of the report, the petitioner was intimated about the same vide letter no. 833/Accts. dated 28.01.2016. Despite the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment, the petitioner persisted for such claim by repeatedly submitting representations and though the same were rejected taking recourse to the earlier rejection of her claim, consequent to the report of the committee, but the representation dated 29.04.2019 was acted upon and was ordered to be placed before a committee comprising of Registrar (Establishment), Registrar (Administration) and Registrar (Vigilance). The committee considered the application of the petitioner on 25.03.2021 and rejected such claim based on the fact that such prayer has already been considered and rejected earlier. The report as submitted was accepted by the Appointment/Promotion/Selection/ ACP & Absorption Committee on 23.12.2021 which was duly approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Consequently, a letter to that effect was issued to the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Anmol Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner is based on frivolous grounds. It has been submitted that only on the ground of strained relationship existing between the petitioner and her husband which also did not culminate in institution of any suit, her claim has been rejected. It has further been submitted that the assertion of the petitioner that only a draft petition for -4- dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was prepared was apparently not considered in its right perspective and based on the averments made in the said draft petition, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. 6. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that almost a decade has passed since the death of the husband of the petitioner and making a consideration to the claim for compassionate appointment at this belated stage would frustrate the very object for which such scheme was brought into existence. It has also been submitted that undoubtedly the relationship between the petitioner and her husband was strained, which would be evident from the complaint case instituted by the petitioner and the willingness of the petitioner to get a decree of divorce based on mutual consent as noted in the report of the Mediator. The petitioner therefore at this stage cannot be permitted to take advantage only on account of the matrimonial suit having not been filed due to the untimely death of her husband. 7. What transpires from the factual aspects of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties is that the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the death of her husband has been rejected primarily based on a futuristic act which would/may have been undertaken had her husband been alive. The grounds which have been stitched together for declining the claim is the complaint case instituted by the petitioner in the year 2010 and the terms and conditions agreed upon before the Mediator agreeing for divorce by mutual consent. Human relationship is very complex and it cannot be assumed that merely because the relationship was strained at a particular point of time, there is no chance of improvement in the future. Moreover, an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not necessarily in all cases come to a logical conclusion for which such applications are filed, as such applications also have to undergo various stages. The scenario in the present case is considerably different as admittedly no petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was preferred, rather a draft petition was prepared which petered out due to the death of the husband of the petitioner. -5- This draft petition does not have any credibility and should not have formed the backbone of the report of the committee dated 18.12.2015. The petitioner was the wife of the deceased employee and her status as widow of late Munna Ram cannot be made to evaporate simply on account of an assumption of an act which would/may have been undertaken had her husband been alive. Once the status of the petitioner is established as noted above as a natural corollary, her other claims including the claim for compassionate appointment would breathe legitimacy into it. 8. As a consequence, to the findings noted above, the impugned letters as contained in Letter No. 833/Accts. Dated 28.01.2016, Letter No. 3262/Accts. dated 04.04.2016 and Letter No. 4217/Accts. dated 24.04.2016 are hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court to take immediate steps for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground in the establishment of the Jharkhand High Court. The aforesaid exercise should be concluded within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. This application is allowed. R Shekhar Cp 2 (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)