Widow sought compassionate appointment for her minor son as 'Bal Arakshi' after her husband's death; the claim was rejected as time barred under a 5-year limit. The Court held compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the son was ineligible at death; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1084 of 2023
Ranju Devi, aged about 42 years, Wife of Late Randhir Kumar Singh, resident of Gram- Sadahpura, P.O. Usfa, P.S. Gorichak, DistrictPatna (Bihar) … … Petitioner
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
09 /01.03.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“1. That the instant writ application is being filed by the petitioner above named, who is the wife of the Late Randhir Kumar Singh, having died in harness, prays before this Hon'ble Court for the following reliefs:
a. For quashing of the Memo no. 858 dated 24.05.2022 issued by respondent no. 5 (Dy. Inspector General of Police (Budget), Ranchi) (Annexure – 6) whereby the said respondent authority returned the proposal regarding appointment of Petitioner's son on compassionate ground on the post of 'Bal Police' since the compassionate committee in its meeting dated 29.03.2022 found the claim time barred as from the provision contained in letter no. 10167 dated 01.12.2015 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2
(Jharkhand) which contains that there is provision for making such application within 5 years from the date of death.
b. For quashing of the letter bearing memo no. 1112 dated 13.06.2022 (Annexure 6/1), whereby the respondent no. 9 (Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh) intimated the petitioner that the Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 29.03.2022 found the proposal relating to appointment of petitioner's son on compassionate ground on the post of 'Bal Police' as time barred as there is there is provision for making such application within 5 years from the date of death in letter no. 10167 dated 01.12.2015 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Jharkhand).
c. For direction upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate ground as 'Bal Police".
d. For direction upon the respondents to immediately appoint the petitioner's son on compassionate ground with all consequential benefits.
AND/OR
Pass such order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fir and proper in the interest of justice.”
3. The ex-employee i.e. the husband of the petitioner expired on 11.11.2013 and the date of birth of the son of the petitioner for whom appointment on compassionate ground against the post of ‘Bal Arakshi’ has been sought for is 26.11.2009. At the time of death of the ex-employee the son of the petitioner was less than 4 years of age. The petitioner filed her application within 5 years from the stipulated time for making an application for compassionate appointment and her application was forwarded on 27.12.2014 seeking guidelines and the matter was under consideration. Vide letter dated 13.03.2015, it was observed by the respondents that the application for compassionate appointment for her son could be considered only after her son attains the age of 12 years which is the minimum age for appointment as ‘Bal Arakshi’.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner’s son is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds under ‘Bal Arakshi’. The learned counsel has submitted that, as per the respondents themselves, the petitioner’s son would be entitled once he attains the age of 12 years, and therefore, appropriate order be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Circular regarding compassionate appointment which was issued in the year 2015 cannot be made effective in view of
3
the fact that the death of the ex-employee had taken place prior to the issuance of the said Circular.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that at the time of death, the petitioner’s son was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under any provision of the scheme for compassionate appointment. He submitted that the son of the petitioner was not even eligible to be appointed as ‘Bal Arakshi’.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that on the date of the death of ex-employee on 11.11.2013, the petitioner’s son was less than 4 years of age, and at that point of time, admittedly the petitioner’s son was not entitled for being appointed as ‘Bal Arakshi’ as the minimum age for appointment as ‘Bal Arakshi’ is 12 years.
7. Further no such provision has been placed on record by the petitioner in the form of any policy that the claim for compassionate appointment will be kept pending till the minor child attains the age of 12 years or that such a claim is to be considered once the child of exemployee attains the age of 12 years. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the respondents had issued letters indicating that the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner’s son will be considered once he attains the age of 12 years, is of no relevance.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgement passed in the case of The State of West Bengal -versus- Debabrata Tiwari & Ors reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 has summarized the principles to determine the claims of compassionate appointment. Some of the paragraphs relevant for the purposes of the present case are paragraphs 7.2 to 7.5 and 16.4 which read as under:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
4
5
employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.”
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the ratio of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s son is not entitled for compassionate appointment as on the date of death of exemployee the son of the petitioner was less than 4 years and was not entitled to be appointed even as ‘Bal Arakshi’. The claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right which could be availed as and when the son of the petitioner attained age of 12 years for being appointed as ‘Bal Arakshi’.
10. This Court finds not merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's son, who was under 4 years of age at the employee's death, is entitled to compassionate appointment as 'Bal Arakshi' after attaining 12 years despite the 5-year limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The State of West Bengal versus Debabrata Tiwari & OrsRelied on¶8
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175
State Bank of India v. Surya Narain TripathiReferred
(2014) 15 SCC 739 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranju Devi
The State of Jharkhand
The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand
The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand
Dy. Inspector General of Police (Budget)
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
