The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6408 of 2017 ---------- Jayant Kumar Pradhan, son of late Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Kumar Sinha, resident of Krishna Vihar Colony, Shivpuri, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Hazaribagh Division, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Ramgarh Circle, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Ramgarh Circle, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 6. Under Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. ………. Respondents. With W.P.(S). No. 6485 of 2017 Abhishek Tirkey, son of late Bhushan Muni, Permanent resident of Hurhuru Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Saedar, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Hazaribagh Division, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Dhanbad Circle, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Dhanbad Circle, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 6. Under Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. ………. Respondents. with W.P.(S). No. 6632 of 2017 1 Md. Kazim Uddin, son of late Md. Nasim Uddin, permanent resident of Imampur, P.O. and P.S. Habibpur, Dist. Bhagalpur, Bihar-813113. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Hazaribagh Division, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Dumka Circle, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, Dist. Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Dumka Circle, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, Dist. Dumka, Jharkhand. 6. Under Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate M/s. Faisal Allam, Asfia Sultana, Sushmita Kumar, Advocates : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI Mr. Ruby Yadav, AC to SC-VI (in W.P.S. No. 6408 of 2017) Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC(L&C)-II Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC(L&C)-II (in W.P.S. No. 6485 of 2017) Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr.SC-II (in W.P.S. No. 6632 of 2017) ---------- 09/ 09.12.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are same and identical, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioners, being the legal heirs/ representatives of the deceased employees of respondent-Commercial Tax Department, have approached this Court with a common prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. 2 Petitioners have further prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders contained in letter No. 2805 dated 26.07.2017 (in W.P.S. No. 6408 of 2017 and W.P.S. No. 6485 of 2017) as well as proceeding dated 11.02.2016 (W.P.S. No. 6632 of 2017) whereby claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the services of the father of petitioners were not confirmed and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for compassionate appointment. 4. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 6408 of 2017 that his father was appointed as a Class-IV employee on 27.02.1980 by the order of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Dhanbad and he worked at several places including Ramgarh till his death on 22.07.2009. Similarly, father of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 6485 of 2017 was appointed as Class-III employee on 23.01.1980 by the order of the Joint Secretary, the Commercial Taxes Department, Dhanbad and he worked at several places including at Dhanbad till his death on 08.12.2009. Likewise, father of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 6632 of 2017 was appointed as Class-IV employee vide order dated 14.07.1979 by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Purnea and he worked at several places including Dumka till his death on 01.04.2011. 5. After death of their fathers, the respective petitioners approached the respondents by filing representations on several occasions for consideration of their cases for appointment on compassionate ground but the same was not considered and subsequently by impugned orders, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Throwing challenge to the said orders of rejection, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. 6. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that the cases of the petitioners were turned down on the ground that fathers of these petitioners were not appointed on sanctioned and vacant post. It has been argued that the ground for rejection of the case 3 of petitioners for compassionate appointment is not tenable in the eyes of law since a person who has served the Department for more than 29 years but due to the reasons best known to the respondents, his services were not regularized, the same cannot be taken as ground for rejection of claim of his legal heirs/ representatives for being appointed on compassionate ground. Even looking into plethora of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.K. Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247, it can safely be construed that fathers of these petitioners were working on regular basis and their appointment was never termed to be illegal or irregular. Learned senior counsel further argues that petitioners’ fathers were getting regular pay-scale and service books were also opened and their cases were considered for revision of pay and other benefits. As such, it cannot be said that fathers of the petitioners were not working on regular basis. 7. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent-State that appointments of the fathers of petitioners was in cloud as they were not appointed on regular basis and as such, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is not tenable and rightly the same was rejected by the respondent-Department. 8. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the cases of present petitioners needs consideration. Admittedly, fathers of petitioners had worked for more than 29 years on regular basis and were getting regular pay-scale and their service books were also opened. Death occurred in the year 2009 and 2011 and petitioners applied for compassionate appointment soon thereafter and there is no delay on the part of the petitioners. It was only in the year 2016, the claim of the compassionate was rejected i.e. after lapse of 7 years. It is not open for the respondents to come with a plea that there was delay in approaching the respondents and as such, the claim for compassionate appointment frustrated due to laches on 4 the part of the petitioners. The said contention of learned counsel for the respondent-State that there was delay is also not acceptable to this Court. 9. The issue as to whether the services were confirmed and whether delay was on the part of the petitioners, those issues ought to have been enquired and in absence of any enquiry, at the very threshold it cannot be said that there was delay on the part of the petitioners. 10. It has also been brought on record that on similar grounds two persons have already been appointed by the respondents. Hence, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any discrimination and when similarly situated persons have been appointed on compassionate ground, non- consideration of the cases of petitioners is in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution of India although permits differentiation on reasonable classification but differentiation on unreasonable classification is not permissible. Here in the instant case when similarly situated persons have already been appointed petitioners cannot be discriminated. The rejection order of the petitioners on the aforesaid grounds is not tenable in the eyes of law. 11. Recently, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dealing with the similar issue in LPA No. 135 of 2021 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Shankar Kumar), dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents vide order dated 02.11.2021. 12. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions the impugned order dated orders contained in letter No. 2805 dated 26.07.2017 (in W.P.S. No. 6408 of 2017 and W.P.S. No. 6485 of 2014) as well as proceeding dated 11.02.2016 (W.P.S. No. 6632 of 2017) being not tenable in the eyes of law are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of present petitioners for their appointment on compassionate ground and if there is no other legal impediment, issue offer of appointment to them. Let the entire exercise be 5 completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/
Decision
production of a copy of this order 13. Resultantly, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. 14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. 15. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 6