Allowed

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC9 May 2023WPC/4653/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ application challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim. The court held that the policy prevailing at the date of the employee's death controls, not the policy at the time of application application. The impugned order is quashed and remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.08.2022 quashed; matter remanded to respondent no.3 to pass fresh order within 8 weeks.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.4653 of 2022

¶2

Dharmendra Kumar …......... Petitioner Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents

¶3

….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Resp.No.1, 2 & 5 : AC to G.P.-V For the Resp.No.3 & 4 : Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate

¶5

¶6

05/09.05.2023 Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned A.C. to G.P.-V appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 and Mr. C.A. Bardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and 4.

¶7

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 by which the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶8

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had died on 03.02.2020 and on the date of his death circular no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 was prevalent and merely because the first application for compassionate appointment was made on 13.09.2021 by which time the said circular was not in vogue, the same would not prevent the claim of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vrs. Ashish Awasthi reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 .

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that circular no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 was cancelled vide circular no.963 dated 12.02.2021 and since the application for compassionate appointment was made after 7 months from the date of issuance of circular dated 12.02.2021 the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent no.3 as on the date of making such application there was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to a dependent of an employee of JIADA.

¶10

The factual aspect of the case reveals that the father of the petitioner was an Arms Guard who in course of service had died on

¶11

-2-

¶12

03.02.2020 which led to an application preferred by the mother of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the necessary documents were submitted before the competent authority. However, vide order dated 29.08.2022 the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that circular no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 was rescinded at the time the first application was made by the mother of the petitioner.

¶13

The only dispute therefore appears to be as to whether the circular no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 would be the guiding factor on consideration of the fact that the date of death of the father of the petitioner was 03.02.2020 or whether the subsequent circular no. 963 dated 12.02.2021 would be prevalent as the application preferred by the mother of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner was made after the issuance of the said circular?

¶14

In this context, reference may be made to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vrs. Ashish Awasthi (supra) wherein it has been held as follows :-

¶15

“5. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.”

¶16

The policy of the State Government prevalent at the time of death of the father of the petitioner was circular no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 which was abolished by virtue of the subsequent Circular No.963 dated 12.02.2021. Admittedly, the application for compassionate appointment was given by the mother of the petitioner after the circular no.963 dated 12.2.2021. However, since the father of the petitioner had died on 03.02.2020 when the circular no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 was prevailing, the respondent no.3 should have considered this aspect of the matter while considering the application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The circular prevalent on the date of the death of the employee would be the guiding factor while considering such application. The respondent no.3 in the impugned order dated 29.08.2022 seems to have considered the subsequent

¶17

-3-

¶18

circular without taking into consideration the fact that on the date of death of the father of the petitioner the circular no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 was prevalent.

¶19

In such view of the matter therefore the impugned order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also taking into consideration the observation made in the preceding paragraphs. The exercise indicated above should be concluded within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of.

¶20

Shamim/

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

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

Rohit Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Sunil Kumar Kamal Vs Human Resource Development

Annu Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Irrigation Deptt

Dr Subhash Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Additional Chief Secretary Deptt of Health

Man Mohan Varma Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Registration Revenue and Land Reforms

Kirtan Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand