Dismissed

Manish Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2019WPC/6427/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father, the petitioner claimed entitlement under a memo directing an application. The court held that compassionate appointment is granted only when an employee dies in harness, not after compulsory retirement, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition seeking direction for compassionate appointment is dismissed.

Manish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No. 6427 of 2018

¶2

Manish Kumar son of late Anil Kumar, resident of Sushila Bhawan, Bansidih, near Joriya, P.O. & P.S- Chas, District- Bokaro. …... Petitioner(s) Vs.

¶3

The State of Jharkhand

¶4

The I.G. Prison, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶5

The Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Gumla. …... Respondent(s)

¶6

For the Petitioner(s) :M/s Dilip Kr. Prasad and Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocates For the State M/s Syed Ramiz Zafar, A.C to A.G..

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶9

04/05.03.2019:

¶10

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner as his father died on 16.5.2017.

¶11

2. It is admitted fact that the father of this petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar was employed as Dresser in the District Jail, Gumla. He was compulsorily retired with effect from 17.12.2016 vide order dated 18.3.2017, as his health did not permit him to continue in service. Thereafter, he died on 16.5.2017.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities vide order Memo No. 871 dated 27^th May, 2018 directed the petitioner to file an application for grant of compassionate appointment in proper format, which shows that the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is under active consideration. Thus, he prays for considering the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment.

¶13

Counsel for the State submits that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner taking into consideration the letter dated 27.5.2017 as because the same is not as per law.

¶14

Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was compulsorily retired with effect from 17.12.2016 and his death has occurred thereafter. Compassionate appointment is granted only in cases where death of an employee occurs in harness, but this is not the case here. Father of the petitioner was compulsorily retired with effect from 17.12.2016, therefore, the relation of employer-employee between the State and the father of this petitioner came to an end with effect from 17.12.2016. The father of the petitioner died on 16.5.2017 i.e. after retirement. The order of retirement has not been challenged, which means, the same is accepted by the petitioner.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts, since the father of the petitioner did not die in harness, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶17

Anu/-CP-2.

¶18

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Manish Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

New Advocates Clerk Association through Its President Shri Jitendra Kumar Malityar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr Its Secretary Revenue And Welfare Department and Ors.

Arjun Karmali Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sushila Devi Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Hema Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary