Partly allowed

Kumar Romex Gourav v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 May 2017WPC/2950/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner, similarly situated to others appointed for higher posts, was discriminated against. The impugned order rejecting his class III appointment petition was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in light of precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.03.2012 was set aside and quashed. The matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman for reconsideration within six weeks.

Kumar Romex Gourav Vs The State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S)No. 2950 of 2016

¶3

Kumar Romex Gourav. … … ...Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Koderma, P.O. + P.S. + District Koderma.

¶7

The Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma, P.O. + P.S. + DistrictKoderma. … … … … ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate.

¶10

C.A.V. on 24.03.2017 : Pronounced on 05.05.2017

¶11

¶12

Dr. S.N.Pathak,J. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with the

¶13

following prayers:-

¶14

i. For quashing of the order vide memo No.117/Establishment dated 19.03.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma whereby and whereunder the application for appointment on compassionate ground to suitable post on class-III has been rejected on erroneous ground.

¶15

ii. For consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on a suitable post of clerk (class-III post), on compassionate ground as the similarly situated person Sri Shivanand Jha has been appointed on class-III post by the order dated 12.10.2006 of the Hon'ble Court vide W.P. (S)No.5725 of 2006 as well as Sri Pramod Kumar has also been appointed on class-III post by the order dated 24.06.2015 of this Hon'ble Court vide W.P.(S)No.7519 of 2012.

¶16

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶17

The father of the petitioner late Suresh Prasad died in harness on 13.03.2004 while working as Forest Guard in Koderma Forest Division. After his death, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and the case of the petitioner was considsered in the meeting dated 27.12.2005 of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Koderma and in the meeting it was decided to appoint the petitioner and other persons including Shri Pramod Kumar on class IV post in the office of Forest Division, Koderma as Bunglow Chaukidar.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that though similarly situated persons who were considered for class IV post along with the

¶19

¶20

petitioner by the same District Establishment Committee, later on others were considered for appointment on class III post but the case of the petitioner was not considered and rejected vide order dated 19.03.2012 for class III post and hence this writ petition has been filed challenging the discriminatory attitude of the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was considered in the meeting dated 27.12.2005 of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Koderma. In the meeting it was decided to appoint the petitioner and other persons including Shri Pramod Kumar on class IV post in the office of Forest Division, Koderma as Bunglow Choukidar.

¶21

Learned Counsel further submits that though similarly situated persons, who were appointed on class IV post have been reconsidered and upgraded to class III post but the case of the petitioner was not considered and rejected illegally and arbitrarily on erroneous grounds. In the same merit list, the name of one Pramod Kumar was shown at Sl. No. 4 in the proceeding dated 27.12.2005 of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. The said Pramod Kumar preferred a writ application in Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi vide W.P.(S)No.7519 of 2012 challenging the rejection order regarding non-consideration of his case for class III post and rejected on the same ground as that of the petitioner. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 6.07.2015 passed an order for reconsideration. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner should have been treated equally but the respondents though have considered the case of similarly situated persons have illegally and arbitrarily discriminated and not considered the case.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of Co-ordinate Bench passed in W.P.(S)No.166 of 2008 and other orders passed in W.P.(S)No.7519/2012 & W.P.(S)No.7219/2005 in which similarly situated persons were considered for appointment on class III post.

¶23

Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in pursuant to the notification No.13293 dated 05.10.1991 as well as letter No.552 dated 19.07.2011 the case of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected because there is no provision to give a second benefit on compassionate ground.

¶25

¶26

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of discrimination as similarly situated persons have been considered for appointment on class III post and the petitioner though having qualification for the same have been illegally and arbitrarily not considered. From the records it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 27.12.2005 as Bunglow Choukidar in the District of Koderma. The petitioner claims that as per his qualification he should have been appointed in class III post. From the records of the case, I find that one Pramod Kumar and one Nand Kishore Anand was also appointed on class IV post in the District of Koderma by the District Establishment committee. They approached this Hon'ble Court by filing writ application bearing W.P.(S)No.7519 of 2012 and W.P.(S)No.7219/2005. The said writ application was disposed of on 06.07.2015. The Hon'ble Court taking into consideration the case of Digvijay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. being C.W.J.C.No.962 of 1999 where the said circular issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms dated 05.10.1991 was under consideration. The Hon'ble Court while disposing of the writ application held as follows:-

¶27

“...In my view, the concerned respondents have misunderstood the scope of earlier observation and direction of this Court. The petitioner's case was not for subsequent promotion or change of post but it raised a grievance that the initial consideration of his appointment on compassionate basis was not done fairly and in accordance with law because relevant facts were not taken into consideration...”

¶28

The writ application bearing W.P.(S)No.7519 of 2012 was disposed of by remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissionercum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Koderma with a direction to consider the case of that petitioner, keeping in view the judgment passed earlier.

¶29

Said Pramod Kumar was appointed thereafter in view of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Pramod Kumar (supra) and Digvijay Kumar Singh. It is settled principle of law that similarly situated persons have to be considered. Similarly there can be no discrimination. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in catena of decisions that there is no provision to give a second benefit on compassionate ground. In the present case, it is not a case for second

¶30

¶31

benefit on compassionate ground. It is a case in which the initial consideration was not done fairly and in accordance with law because relevant facts were not taken into consideration. If the case of the petitioner and that of Pramod Kumar and Digvijay Kumar Singh stands on similar footing. The case of the petitioner also needs to be reconsidered. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 19.03.2012 is set aside and quashed as the same issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S)No.166 of 2008 and the matter has been remitted back for reconsideration. This case is also remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Pramod Kumar and Digvijay Kumar Singh vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. and in the case of Shivanand Jha and Nand Kishore Anand in W.P. (S)No.7219/2005 who were also initially appointed in class IV post but later on were recommended for appointment in class III post.

¶32

Needless to say that keeping in view the aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble Court as well as that of Patna High Court passed in the case of Digvijay Kumar Singh vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C.No.962/1999 an appropriate and reasoned order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.]

¶35

P.K.S.

Kumar Romex Gourav v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Romex Gourav v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Ful Kumari Vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Rekha Devi Vs the Union of India through the Secretary of House Affairs and Ors.

Anima Devi Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. And

Radhe Manjhi Vs Central Coal Fields Limited And

Avinash Alfred Marandi Vs Personnel And Adminis Reform

Ms.Sanicharia Kumari Vs Central Coalfield Limited And an