Puja Jha Vs Energy Department

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 261 of 2018

¶3

Puja Jha ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶6

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

The General Manager (Human Resources), Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶9

The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Sancharan Zone-I, Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi

¶10

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Sancharan Anchal, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶11

..... Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

For the Petitioner	--------- : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents	: Mr. M.K. Roy, G.A.-I
For the State	: Mr. Suman Marandi, AC to SC-IV

¶15

10/ 12.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the reasoned order as contained in Memo No. 1594 dated 11.09.2017; whereby the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-11) with respect to compassionate appointment has been rejected.

¶17

The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6903 of 2016 wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ application by directing the respondent department to take a decision on the representation within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing of representation. Pursuant thereto; a reasoned order has been passed wherein the claim of the petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a adopted daughter and as per the scheme adopted daughters are not allowed for compassionate appointment.

¶18

Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scheme the adopted daughters can be appointed by the respondent department. However, he submits that in supplementary counter affidavit the respondents have taken a new ground that there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner is adopted daughter or not. He further submits that even entire payment and other benefits which accrued pursuant to the death of the deceased employee, has been given to her but at the later stage they have

¶19

¶20

taken a ground that the petitioner is not adopted daughter. He further submits that the respondent department being a State cannot take a reverse view just to reject the claim of the petitioner as such the impugned order may be quashed and mandamus may be issued for appointment of this petitioner.

¶21

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it has been specifically stated that the claim of the petitioner has been disputed by another adopted son of Madhuri Devi (deceased employee).

¶22

Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that an application on behalf of another adopted son of the deceased employee has been made and thus the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on being inadmissible as per the standing order No. 756 dated 18.02.1994.

¶23

He further submits that though the entire payment has been made to the petitioner but the same was paid as the petitioner was appointed as nominee in all the documents; but now there is a dispute as to who is the adopted son/daughter, the respondent is unable to agree with the claim of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the factum of adoption itself is in question.

¶24

He lastly submits that the death of the deceased employee was in the year 2013 and enough water has been flown thereafter; as such the concept of compassionate appointment will not be fulfilled.

¶25

In reply to the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the respondent department, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the rejoinder; wherein it is specifically stated that earlier one Prince Kumar who is the contender studied at Madhya Vidyalaya Bahadurpur, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur and has given certificate in which name of father of Prince Kumar is Pradeep Mishra and mother’s name is Punam Mishra, thus taking a plea that there is a dispute is non est in the eye of law. He further relied on para 23 and Annexure- 26 of its supplementary affidavit filed on 12.04.2023.

¶26

Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case; so far as the stand mentioned in impugned order that adopted son/daughter cannot be given compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the scheme, inasmuch as, in para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 27.09.2023 the respondent department has admitted that at the time of death the standing order of 1994 was not in operation. However, certified standing order was amended vide Memo No. 399 dated 09.05.2022 and as per that adopted son/daughter will be provided compassionate appointment. For brevity, para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit is quoted herein below:

¶27

¶28

“ At the very outset it is submitted that till 09.05.2022 the service conditions of the employees of erstwhile JSEB was guided by the Standing Orders which did not include any provisions of providing compassionate appointment to adopted children. Hence the claim of the petitioner was not considered till the same date. However, subsequently the certified standing orders have been amended vide memo no. 399 dated 09.05.2022 and the same has been brought in consonance with rules and regulations of the State Government to the extent of compassionate appointment. After the amendment the provisions to provide compassionate appointment to adopted children has been included. However, even in the changed scenario the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered till such time she produces conclusive proof of adoption.”

¶29

In view of the aforesaid averment made in para-8 to the supplementary counter affidavit that the certified standing orders have been amended vide memo no. 399 dated 09.05.2022 and the same has been brought in consonance with rules and regulations of the State Government to the extent of compassionate appointment and after the amendment the provisions to provide compassionate appointment to adopted children has been included. Thus, the first issue is decided against the respondents and it is held that adopted son/daughter can be given compassionate appointment.

¶30

Now so far as the question of adoption is concerned; admittedly there is no certificate either in favour of the petitioner as per Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 nor with the Prince Kumar. However, admittedly the entire payment has been made to this petitioner, as such interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the respondent to hold an enquiry at the earliest and decide the issue after calling both the parties and take witnesses of the neighbours as to whether the petitioner was adopted daughter or not, as well as, as to whether Mr. Prince Kumar is real adopted son.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant application is hereby disposed of by remitting the case to respondent No.2 who shall hold an enquiry by deputing a competent officer with a direction to call both the parties; the petitioner as well as the rival claimant, namely, Prince Kumar and also neighbors/witnesses to ascertain the fact as to whether the petitioner is adopted daughter or not and take a final decision.

¶32

It is made clear that if the final decision is decided in favour of the petitioner, then her claim for appointment should not be rejected only on the

¶33

¶34

ground that 9 years have been completed because even now the applicant is aged about 30 years.

¶35

It goes without saying that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 months by following principles of natural justice.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶37

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶38

Pramanik/

Puja Jha v. Energy Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puja Jha v. Energy Department

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

Nilesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sudhir Kumar Pathak Vs the Union of India through General Manager South Eastern Railway

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Home Prison and Disaster Management Deptt

Gobardhan Ram Vs Education

Dharmender Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Department

Bir Bahadur Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.