Mahendra Prakash Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Home

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.396 of 2023

-----

Mahendra Prakash Yadav, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Amichand Prakash Yadav, R/o Village - Baladih, Tarapur, P.O. - Madhodih, P.S. - Harpur, District - Munger, Bihar.

¶4

… … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Home, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The DIG, Establishment, Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Urban Area, Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶10

The Officer In-charge, Chutia Police Station, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi.

¶11

Annu Kumar, W/o Late Rudra Ranjan Kumar, R/o Village Beladih, Tarapur, P.O. Madhodih, P.S. Harpur, District - Munger, Bihar. … … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶14

¶15

For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to G.P.-II

¶16

¶17

Order No. 13 / Dated 13^th June, 2024

¶18

1. The instant appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3981 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the prayer which was made by the writ petitioner seeking direction upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to extend the benefits of compassionate appointment and other financial benefits to the children of the deceased employee, namely, Rudra Ranjan Kumar as also not to extend any financial benefits

¶19

Page 1

¶20

arising out of compassionate appointment to the Respondent No.6 as she is living an adulterous life, has been refused to be allowed by dismissing the writ petition.

¶21

2. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that although when the writ petition was filed, the writ petitioner had presumption in his mind that if the appointment on compassionate ground will be granted on account of death of his son in harness and other service benefits of his deceased son, then he will be in financial difficulties. But the learned Single Judge, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition is based upon the presumption by anticipating the aforesaid things which will happen in future.

¶22

3. Mr. Tripathi, however, has submitted that in the meanwhile the widow, i.e., Respondent No.6, has started living separately and, as such, the petitioner being the father of the deceased employee, is having no source of income for his livelihood as he was also dependent upon his deceased son.

¶23

4. The submission has been made that while providing appointment on compassionate ground, as per Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Ground (Memo No.10167 dated 01.12.2015), a provision has been made therein that at the time of providing appointment on compassionate

¶24

Page 2

¶25

ground, the appointee-dependent of the deceased will have to give a declaration that he/she will provide all financial help for the succor of the other dependents of the deceased employee. But, now the Respondent No.6 has started living separately, hence the condition which was in the declaration furnished by the Respondent No.6 at the time of getting appointment on compassionate ground is being defied.

¶26

5. Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned A.C. to G.P.-II, appearing for the State, however, has submitted that the said issue is being submitted for the first time before this court without bringing the same before the competent authority and, as such, the same may not be entertained for the purpose of consideration of the legality and propriety of the impugned order.

¶27

6. According to the learned State counsel, at the time the writ petition was filed and when it was decided, the specific case of the writ petitioner was on presumption that if the appointment on compassionate ground will be granted in favour of the Respondent No.6 along with post death benefits of the deceased employee, there is likelihood that the Respondent No.6 will start living separately.

¶28

7. So far as the contention made of flouting the declaration as contained in the affidavit which was furnished at the time of appointment on compassionate

¶29

Page 3

¶30

ground is concerned, the same will be brought to the notice of the competent authority and will be taken care of so as to meet the very purpose and spirit of the appointment on compassionate ground which is to provide financial succor in favour of the dependent of the deceased employee.

¶31

8. Upon this, Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks leave of this court to withdraw this appeal. However, he has sought for liberty to make representation before the authority.

¶32

9. The question of granting liberty is not relevant for the present, reason being that if there is a declaration and the said declaration is being flouted, it is always open for the other dependents of the deceased employee to bring the aforesaid fact of defying the declaration as contained in the affidavit for the purpose of taking appropriate decision so as to achieve the very object and spirit of the appointment on compassionate ground.

¶33

10. This Court, in view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellant, is hereby allowing the appellant to withdraw the instant appeal.

¶34

11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶35

12. However, if any application/representation will be filed with respect to defiance of the declaration given in the affidavit which was submitted by the Respondent No.6 at

¶36

Page 4

¶37

the time of getting compassionate appointment before the competent authority, the same will be taken care of and decided in accordance with law by deciding the issue of dependency also, after providing due opportunity to the Respondent No.6, without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶38

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶39

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶40

Birendra/ N.A.F.R.

¶41

Page 5

Mahendra Prakash Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Prakash Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Singh Pahan Since Deceased Represented by Narendra Kachhap Vs State of Jharkhand

Arthor Capton Vs the State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Vs Gabriel Kiro

Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd) through Its Chairman Vs Bina Devi

Tanu Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Director Higher Education H R D Deptt

The State of Jharkhand Vs Om Prakash Gupta