The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment. The court held that after a lapse of 22 years, the basic purpose of compassionate appointment was frustrated, relying on Supreme Court precedents.
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. 5348 of 2017
Kajaru Munda son of late Jhaltu Munda, resident of at & P.O. Sarubera Colony, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh …. Petitioner(s)
Versus
----For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Deen Bandhu, Om Prakash Prasad and Ratnesh Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .
06/12.03.2019:
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.7.2016, by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that he was below the age of 15 years on the date of death of the employee and thus, he was not qualified to be kept in “live roster” maintained by the Company for grant of compassionate appointment.
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 has held as follows;
“3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar , reported in (1998) 5 SCC 192 . It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless these are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.”
Anu/-CP2
(Ananda Sen, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for compassionate appointment made more than two decades after the death of the employee can be granted.
Whether the basic purpose of compassionate appointment is frustrated by the excessive lapse of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.Relied on¶23
(2000) 7 SCC 192 · Who else cites this
Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra KumarRelied on¶24
(1998) 5 SCC 192 · Who else cites this
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and AnotherRelied on¶25
(1996) 1 SCC 301 · Who else cites this
Kajaru Munda
Central Coalfields Limited
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
