Dismissed

Ankur Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2023WPC/1452/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, appointed on compassionate grounds in a Class-IV post, sought to upgrade his status to a Class-III post after two years. The Court dismissed the application, noting an express government circular bars any change or upgradation once a category is accepted, and finding no evidence that the petitioner was ever recommended for a higher class.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' prayer for upgradation of appointment category was dismissed.

Ankur Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through the… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P(S) No. 1452 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Ankur Kumar …. …. Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Ranchi

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Gumla

¶8

Block Development Office, Palkot

¶9

Block Development Officer, Chainpur, Gumla

¶10

…. …. Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, AC to GA-II

¶13

3/19.01.2023

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

By filing this application, petitioner has claimed that he should have been appointed against Class-III post, thus his appointment be upgraded.

¶16

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on 17.01.2017. Father of the petitioner was an employee under State of Jharkhand, who died on 31.01.2016 in harness. The petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate basis after recommendation of the Compassionate Appointment Committee. He was offered Class-IV post which he accepted and joined on 17.01.2017. After two years of the said joining the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that his case should have been considered for appointment against Class-III post and not Class-IV post.

¶17

There is a Circular of the government dated 01.12.2015 contained in Memo No.10167. From Clause-15 (G) of the said circular it is apparent that once a person accepted appointment on compassionate ground in the category, so offered, the same could not be changed or upgraded for any reasons, whatsoever.

¶18

Admittedly, the petitioner had accepted his appointment in Class-IV post and he worked for two years. Petitioner did not approach this Court immediately, but approached this Court after two years. Further there is a circular of the government which prohibits upgradation of the category. Furthermore there is no document to suggest that the Committee which consider the case of the petitioner, has recommended anyone for appointment against Class-III post. Thus, I find no reasons to entertain this writ application

¶19

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.

¶20

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶21

anjali/cp2

Ankur Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

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

Pankaj Kumar Lal Vs Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs through Its Principal Secretary

Surender Mirdha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajesh Kumar Singh Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Vijay Das Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Niranjan Manjhi Vs General Manager Dhori Colliery Ms Central Coalfields Limited

Satyendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand