Dheeraj Lal Hansda v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5012 of 2022 Dheeraj Lal Hansda ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Canara Bank, through Divisional Manager, HRM Section, Circle Office, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi 3.Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Human Resources Management Section, HRM Section, Circle Office, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi 4.Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Bokaro Steel City Branch, Dist.- ………. Respondents. Bokaro ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the Resp.-Bank Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate Mr. Amitesh Kumar Gensen, AC to AAG-IA
Legal Reasoning
----------- : : : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate ---------- 09/ 10.06.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on the ground of death of his father Jogeswar Hansda (Employee ID-57931), who was working as a peon at Bokaro Steel City Branch of the respondent-Canara Bank. Petitioner has also prayed for quashment of the letter dated 01.12.2020 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been turned down. 3. Father of the petitioner has died in harness on 06.10.2015. The petitioner being the son of deceased employee having qualification of B.Sc with B.Ed had applied for compassionate appointment soon after the death of his father in December 2015. However, the case of the petitioner turned down on 03.10.2020 on the ground that petitioner does not fulfill the object of compassionate appointment as there were no indigent circumstances and the case does not fall within the parameters of the policy. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of rejection is 1 not tenable in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that the Branch Manager of the concerned bank while considering the case of the petitioner had already recommended his case for appointment on compassionate ground observing inter alia that financial position of the petitioner’s family is not good and there is no any other sources of income. Learned counsel further submits that said recommendation was never considered by the respondent-Bank considered by the higher authorities of the bank and in a most mechanical way without assigning any reasons the case of the petitioner has been turned down/rejected. Learned counsel further submits that it is always the recommendation of the Branch, which make basis for either rejection or allowing the case for compassionate appointment. No reasons has been assigned in the impugned order as to what was the basis for rejection and by relying on which document the said decision was taken by the respondent-bank. Learned counsel relying on plethora of judgments submits that reasons cannot be supplied by way of counter-affidavit. It has to be reflected from the impugned order itself. Learned counsel further submits that merely because the dependents have received the death-cum- retiral benefits, they cannot be debarred from the compassionate appointment. The compassionate appointment is provided to meet the immediate hardship which family of the deceased employee faces after the death of sole bread winner. The case of the petitioner was duly recommended by the Branch where his father was posted but without assigning proper reason the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the higher authorities of the bank which is not tenable in the eyes of law compelling the petitioner to rush to this Court seeking relief. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the legal heirs have already received the death-cum-retiral benefits and also getting the family pension it cannot be said that their financial position is not as such to meet the requirements of the family. Learned counsel further submits that very object of the compassionate appointment is frustrated once the family has survived for long period of time. Learned counsel further submits that 2 since the object of compassionate appointment is intended to unable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family without any means of livelihood. Petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that it can be very well presumed and comfortably inferred that there is no financial crisis in the family since they have already received the benefits aforesaid. Learned counsel further submits that reasons have been fully assigned in para-8 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 23.04.2024. 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the bar, this court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons; (i) Admittedly the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and thereafter rejected. (ii) The most fundamental principles of the Rule of Law recognized in all the democratic systems is that the power vested in any competent authority shall not be exercised arbitrarily and if that power is exercised it does not lead to any unfair discrimination. (iii) In the instant case, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Branch Manager. It is Branch Manager who was fully aware about the condition of the family after going through the financial condition of the petitioner as to whether his case for appointment should be recommended or not. Relying on several documents he recommended the case of the petitioner which was turned down by the higher authorities exercising their power arbitrarily and illegally that amounts to denying the right of petitioner inspite of fulfilling eligibility criteria for appointed on compassionate ground. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank relying on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court submits that based on documents which have been brought on record by way of supplementary counter- affidavit, it can be very comfortably inferred that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of consideration for compassionate appointment and rightly the same has been rejected and turned down. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that since the very 3 basis for compassionate appointment is to provide the financial succor which the family requires the most after the death of bread winner but in the present case it was found that the family of the petitioner have overcame the financial crisis and as such the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that there is no any illegality or infirmity in the order. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that they have supplied the reasons which is reflected from the supplementary counter-affidavit at para-8 is not at all accepted to this Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly observed in catena of decision that the infirmity arising out of absence of reasons cannot be cured by the authorities passing the order stating such reasons in a affidavit filed before the Court where the validity of any such order is under challenge. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 was of the view “that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 the Court was of the view that “The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” In the instant case nothing is reflected from the impugned order rather no reasons have been assigned but by way of supplementary counter- affidavit, the respondent-Bank has tried to improve its case by assigning and 4 supplementing reasons which is not tenable in the eyes of law. In view of the recommendation of the Branch Manager which is at page-27 of the writ petition, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and issue letter of appointment on compassionate ground within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 5