Dismissed

Vijay Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2023WPC/1527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment after his father, a bank orderly, died in harness. The Court, interpreting the Bank’s scheme requiring death due to violence, terrorism, or within five years, held the petitioner’s case not covered and dismissed the application, allowing a challenge to the scheme.

What did the court decide?

The writ application against the dismissal of compassionate appointment was dismissed, with a liberty to challenge the scheme of compassionate appointment.

Vijay Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 1527 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Vijay Marandi …. …. Petitioner(s).

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka

¶7

Chief Manager, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka

¶8

Branch Manager, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Kendua, Sahebganj

¶9

…. …. Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, SC (Mines-I) Mr. Diva Kant Ray, AC to SC Mines-I

¶12

5/23.01.2023

¶13

Heard the parties at length.

¶14

I have gone through the entire writ petition and the impugned order and the submissions made therein.

¶15

Petitioner prays for grant of compassionate appointment. Narsingh Marandi, the father of this petitioner was employed under Vananchal Gramin Bank as orderly. He died in harness on 21.2.2014. The petitioner claims for grant of compassionate appointment but his application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.12.2018. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that as per the Scheme of compassionate appointment prevalent in the Bank, the compassionate appointment is given to the dependent of an employee whose death occurs due to violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity while performing the duty or when the death occurred within five years from his first appointment or if the deceased was of less than 30 years. In the instant case there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner’s death is accidental and occurred in duty due to violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity while performing the duty. Further, father of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 and he died in the year 2014 i.e much beyond the period of five years as prescribed in the scheme of compassionate appointment.

¶16

The appointment in compassionate ground is against the constitutional provision. Since Article 14 &16 of the Constitution are not followed while granting compassionate appointment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that strict compliance of the scheme is necessary, while granting compassionate appointment. Admittedly there is scheme of the respondents which governs compassionate appointment and the nature of death of the father of the petitioner does not falls within the four corners of the scheme.

¶17

-2-

¶18

Be it noted that constitutional validity of the scheme is also not under challenge in this writ application. Whether the death can be categorised or not, cannot be subject matter of this writ application. Thus, I hold that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as case of the petitioner on factual ground is not covered by the scheme of compassionate appointment prevalent in the Bank.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed with a liberty to challenge the scheme of compassionate appointment, if he so wishes.

¶20

anjali/cp2

Vijay Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Marandi v. the 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

Anil Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Rajmatia Devi Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Duryodhan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rana Uday Pratap Singh Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Sanskrit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police

Rajni Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand