Budhoo Oraon v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 6587 of 2012 ------- Budhoo Oraon ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 4. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Building Construction Department, Ranchi 5. The Superintending Engineer, Chhotanagpur Superintending Office, Jharkhand State Building Construction Department, Ranchi ... ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------- For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Shrivastav, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Singh, J.C. to S.C. II ------- 07/09.07.2013 On 08.07.2013, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner for adjourning the matter for one day. Today, when the matter is called out, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Shrivastav, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Pyar Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, appears and seeks another adjournment. 2.
Decision
In view of the facts disclosed in the writ petition, the prayer for adjournment is rejected. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the father of the petitioner, Late Thapai Oraon joined the service in the 1959 and he died in harness on 2 03.07.1982. After the death of his father, the petitioner made an application on 05.07.1982 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. It is further stated that by letter dated 04.07.1985, a letter was written to the Executive Engineer admitting the application submitted by the petitioner dated 12.07.1982. The petitioner again made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as the Executive Engineer on 07.12.2012, however, as the appointment on compassionate ground was not offered to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 resisting the claim of the petitioner as time barred. In paragraph- 5, it has been stated as under, “That with regard to the statement made in para 1 of the writ application it is humbly stated and submitted that the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction and Housing Department, Building Circle No. 2, Ranchi had forwarded the application of Shri Budhoo Oraon, S/o Late Thapi Oraon, ex-labour, of the department for appointment on compassionate ground vide his letter no. 288, dated 20.05.1999 who had died in harness on 03.07.1982. The petitioner had claimed that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted in the department on 12.07.1982 but, the said original application was not forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner- Compassionate District cum-Chairman, Committee, Ranchi by the Superintending Engineer. 3 It is further submitted that the Superintending engineer, Building construction and Housing Department, Building Circle No. 2, Ranchi has forwarded the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground vide his letter no. 288, dated 20.05.1999 with enclosures (the application and the letter no. 1846, dated 04.07.1985 sent to the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Ranchi). The date of application mentioned in the enclosed application form with the letter no. 288, dated 20.05.1999 has been shown as 27.10.1998. But in the letter no. 1846, dated 04.07.1985 sent to the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Building Division, Ranchi by the Superintending Engineer, it is mentioned that the petitioner had submitted the said application on 12.07.1982 to the department. So, the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction and Housing Department, Building Circle No. 2, Ranchi has been requested to send the said application dated 12.07.1982 vide letter no. 319(ii)/estb., dated 20.04.2000 by the Establishment Deputy Collector, Ranchi with a copy to the petitioner which has not been received from him as yet. Hence the case of the petitioner has not been placed before the committee for consideration. It is pertinent to mention here in that as per the instruction contained in the letter no. 12754 dated 12.07.1977 of the personnel, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna the maximum time limit for submitting the application for appointment on compassionate ground has been fixed to two years from the date of death of the government servant that has been amended to five years vide letter no. 2822, dated 27.04.1995 of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. But, as per the application forwarded by the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction and Housing Department, Building Circle No. 2, Ranchi the date of application being 27.10.1998 makes the application time 4 barred.” 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. The father of the petitioner died on 03.07.1982 and thereafter, the petitioner made an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. After 1982, the petitioner moved another application in the year 2012 that is, after a lapse of about 30 years. 8. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.”, reported in (1994)4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course, has observed: 2. “.....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable 5 land valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merit. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.