Dismissed

Shankar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Ministry

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2019WPC/2705/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding compassionate appointment, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petitioner's application. The Court held that filing the plea 17 years after the breadwinner's death barred relief, noting that compassionate appointment is a concession to meet immediate financial crisis, not a matter of right or life roster.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was dismissed as the application was filed too late.

Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Page 1 of 4 W.P.(S) No. 2705 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 2705 of 2019

¶4

Shankar Singh

¶5

… ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Water Resources Ministry, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Executive Engineer, Water Resources (Department), Ranchi.

¶9

Chief Engineer, Small Tributaries Section, Water Resources … …

¶10

(Department), Seraikella-Kharsawan. Respondents

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, G.P.-I.

¶15

¶16

Order No. 03: Dated: 17^th December, 2019

¶17

Per Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.:

¶18

Heard the parties.

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court for direction upon the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment on ground of death of his father namely Brahmdeo Singh who was working to the post of Jeep Driver and died in harness in the year 2002.

¶20

As per the factual matrix, the petitioner at the time of death of his father was a minor and earlier case of his mother for compassionate appointment was already rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground of her being the 2^nd wife of the deceased employee. Now, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner with the consent of other family members which includes one married sister, one younger brother and his mother, applied for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment vide application dated 21.02.2019, but, no heed has been paid to his application till date.

¶21

Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that being the legal heir of the deceased, the petitioner is fully entitled for getting appointment on compassionate ground. It is

¶22

Page 2 of 4 W.P.(S) No. 2705 of 2019

¶23

further submitted that the petitioner has obtained NOC from his family members and also possess requisite educational qualification for appointment on compassionate ground and as such a direction may be given to respondent authority for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground.

¶24

On the other hand, learned G.P.-I, appearing for respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2002 while the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment after 17 years’ of death of his father. This is not tenable in the eye of law as there is limitation of five years for compassionate appointment. The Government circular for compassionate appointment clearly speaks about five years limitation and the petitioner has made application after 17 years of death of his father. Learned G.P.-I further argues that there is no provision for life roster in compassionate appointment in the State of Jharkhand and as such no consideration could be shown for compassionate appointment.

¶25

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this is considered view of the Court that no case of interference is made out. Admittedly, on attaining the majority, the petitioner has applied in the year 2019 for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father in the year 2002. The scheme for consideration on compassionate appointment is for that family who suffers from hardship after the death of bread earner of the family. But, it appears that the entire family has survived for 17 long years. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the family is facing starvation and no one is there to look after them. The petitioner cannot claim the compassionate appointment after 17 years of death of his father. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a large number of decisions has held that appointment on

¶26

Page 3 of 4 W.P.(S) No. 2705 of 2019

¶27

compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right it must be provided under the rules . In the judgment dated 26.11.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5047 of 2018 in the case of Mohan Murmu Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. this Court in paragraph nos. 6, 7 & 8, has held that:

¶28

“6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. The petitioner has approached the respondent-authorities for getting compassionate appointment after an inordinate delay of 8 years and as such, rightly his case was not considered. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a large number of decisions has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain , reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 560] has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and inconsistence with the constitutional provisions.

¶29

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank &

¶30

Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:-

¶31

“16. ………………. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.

¶32

(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.

¶33

(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate

¶34

Page 4 of 4 W.P.(S) No. 2705 of 2019

¶35

employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.”

¶36

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana , reported in 1994 SCC (4) 138 , has held as under:-

¶37

“6. ……………….. The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

¶38

It is clear from the above decisions that the application for compassionate appointment made after the due date, is against the provision and cannot be entertained. The scheme for compassionate appointment has been made only to take out the family from the starvation, there is no provision of life roster in any of the scheme for compassionate appointment and hence, the case of the petitioner is hereby rejected and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶39

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶40

Jharkhand High Court MM/17.12.2019 AFR/NAFR

Shankar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Ministry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Ministry

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

Sunita Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Jagat Narayan Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Department Of Industry And Ors.

Smt Samola Devi Vs the Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Rajesh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Tripurari Goswami Vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Mahto Vs the Union of India through General Manager South Eastern Railway