This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the State of Jharkhand's rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. The court held that the claim was barred by gross delay as the application was made significantly after the statutory time limit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No. 2002 of 2013
Mrinmoy Roy ... … Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand and ors. ... ... Respondents ---- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
---For the Petitioner :Mr. xx For the Respondents :JC to GP II
3- 10.03.2014 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. On the last occasion also counsel for the petitioner was absent and the matter was adjourned on that account. Counsel for the State is present and a counter affidavit has also been filed on their behalf.
The petitioner is challenging the memo No.282 dated 14.9.2012 whereunder his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. Admittedly, the petitioner's father died on 13.2.1994 while working as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Bando now in the district of Jamtara. As per the petitioner's case the files relating to the petitioner were not placed before the Compassionate Appointment Committee, which led to delay in taking a decision. As such the appointment of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order as contained in Annexure 5, dated 14.9.2012.
As per the respondents, on the death of the petitioner's father his mother applied for compassionate appointment in 1995 and she was aged more than 39 years at the relevant point of time and , therefore, she could not have been granted compassionate appointment. Thereafter, after more than 5 years of the death of her husband, an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was made by his mother in 1999, which was itself time barred. As per scheme of compassionate appointment, such an application is to be made within five years of the date of death. Despite that, again the petitioner moved before the respondent-authority in 2009, thereafter the matter was placed before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for considering
the case of the petitioner along with several others. The Committee in its meeting held on 14.9.2012, Annexure 5, rejected the petitioner's claim as being made beyond five years, time limit.
Counsel for the respondent-State submits that in a case of compassionate appointment after the death in 1994, the family of the deceased having survived, no compassionate appointment should be granted in such circumstances.
Having regard to the averment made in the pleadings on records and the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, it is, therefore, apparent that the claim for compassionate appointment was barred by delay, as the mother of the petitioner had made an application in the year 1999 after more than 5 years of the death of the deceased. The petitioner slept over his right and again represented in 2009. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the respondents and has been rejected on the ground of delay. In the matter of compassionate appointment, which is to be governed under the scheme framed by the employer and under the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such regard , such appointment is granted to enable the family of the deceased to ward off immediate loss of bread earner and from being reduced to penury and hardship. Now after 20 years of the death of petitioner's father, therefore, the whole claim appears to be barred by gross delay and, therefore, no flaw in the decision of the respondents to refuse the petitioner's claim can be found.
This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. )
Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim for compassionate appointment is barred due to gross delay in filing the application after the death of the father.
Whether the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding compassionate appointment are applicable in cases of prolonged delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrinmoy Roy
The State of Jharkhand
Apareesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
