Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Nepal House v. Doranda, P.O. & P.S
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2879 of 2023 Kumari Shobha Burnwal daughter of Late Kisto Prasad Burnwal and wife of Ashok Kumar aged about 37 years, C/o Pappu Sao, near Kali Mandir, P.O. – Hirapur, P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Petitioner … … 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Nepal House, Versus Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. Secretary, Personnel, Rajbhasha and Administrative Reforms Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 5. In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Baghmara, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Baghmara District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand), 6. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.-Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY 07/20.03.2024 For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP II : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP II --- Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of resolution of compassionate appointment committee dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure-1) and Memo No.1923 dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad. And ii. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the appropriate nature of writ applicable in the case to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground on the demise of her father in harness; AND/OR iii. For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or Order(s) for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of death of the deceased employee is 08.05.2009 and an application for compassionate appointment for the daughter was filed in the year 2014 and the same was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2014 as contained in Annexure - 1 to the writ petition by mentioning that in terms of the Circular of Bihar bearing No.13293 dated 05.10.1991, the married daughter was not included. The learned 2 counsel submits that the daughter of the deceased employee who is the petitioner before this Court got married in the year 2008. The learned counsel has also submitted that thereafter the petitioner has been pursuing her case and another order was ultimately communicated to the petitioner as contained in Annexure - 2 dated 11.10.2021 referring to the earlier order of rejection of the year 2014. The learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents in making a distinction between a married and unmarried daughter is not permissible in the eyes of law, and therefore action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India; therefore, the impugned orders are fit to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the death had occurred way back in the year 2009, the application was rejected in the year 2014, the subsequent communication dated 11.10.2021 does not revive the cause of action as it only referred to the rejection order way back in the year 2014. He submits that the very purpose of compassionate appointment has frustrated, and therefore no relief be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that a counter- affidavit has been filed indicating that the brother of the petitioner is duly employed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the ex-employee had expired on 08.05.2009 and the application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 14.11.2014, but no challenge was made to the order of rejection dated 14.11.2014 which was rejected on the basis of Circular issued by the State of Bihar way back in the year 1991. 6. This Court further finds that another communication was made to the petitioner dated 11.10.2021 referring to the earlier order of rejection dated 14.11.2014. This Court is of the considered view that the fresh order dated 11.10.2021 does not revive the cause of action inasmuch as the same was only referring to the earlier order of rejection dated 14.11.2014 and now the present writ petition has been filed challenging the earlier order dated 16.10.2014 as well as the communication dated 11.10.2021. The fact remains that the brother of 3 the petitioner is already employed as has been stated in paragraph no.12 of the counter-affidavit which in turn is based on affidavit dated 05.05.2014 sworn by the brother of the petitioner. No rejoinder has been filed to the counter-affidavit. 7. At this stage of the dictation of order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has not received copy of the counter-affidavit. 8. However, considering the fact that the father of the petitioner had expired way back in the year 2009; the order of rejection of compassionate appointment for the petitioner was passed in the year 2014 as per then then applicable circular being letter no. 13293 dated 05.10.1991 and such rejection was simply reiterated vide memo dated 11.10.2021, there is no fresh cause of action for the petitioner upon issuance of letter dated 11.10.2021. The communication dated 11.10.2021 does not revive the cause of action which arose by virtue of the earlier order of rejection dated 14.11.2014 which remained unchallenged for about 9 years. 9. This Court is also of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner cannot revive by virtue of subsequent circular regarding compassionate appointment contained in letter no. 10167 dated 01.12.2015. 10. Moreover, by this time much time has elapsed. The very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment has frustrated. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant relief as prayed for by
Decision
the writ petitioner in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)