Ravi Toppo Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 299 of 2023

Ravi Toppo, aged about 35 years, son of late Krishna Toppo, Resident of Mohalla Karamtoli, P.O. Morhabadi, P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ranchi Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner having office in the Building of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, DistrictRanchi.

¶7

Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation having office in the Building of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

¶8

Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation having office in the Building of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate : Mr. Vishal Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate

¶12

¶13

06 /08.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶14

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶15

“That in the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his mother, who was the permanent employee of the Respondent No.1, died on 20.02.2015 while she was in service;

¶16

For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order(s)/direction (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶17

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since no order has been passed in connection with claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner he would be satisfied if appropriate order is passed directing the respondents to consider his case.

¶18

4. The learned counsel has submitted that mother of the petitioner late Biti Toppo was the employee of respondent no. 1 and was posted in the store of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and she died on 20.02.2015. Father of the petitioner had expired much earlier and the petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased employee. He submits that an application for compassionate appointment was made and lastly a communication dated 24.07.2021 was issued by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner Ranchi as contained in Annexure-7 asking the petitioner to submit necessary documents. The learned counsel further submits that all the necessary documents was again submitted on 14.09.2022, although the required documents were already submitted, but till date no decision has been taken.

¶19

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Ranchi Municipal Corporation has submitted that though no counter affidavit has been filed in the present case but the case of the petitioner can be considered in terms of the applicable circular regarding compassionate appointment, if any, after verifying the records of the respondents. He has also submitted that if the application of the petitioner is found in order, then under such circumstances, there can be no reason as to why his application be not processed and considered in accordance with law but the date of application etc. is also required to be considered.

¶20

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of relief as prayed for in this writ petition, this court is of the considered view that no counter affidavit is required to be called for at this stage.

¶21

7. It appears that on 24.07.2021 the petitioner was asked to submit certain documents and it is the claim of the petitioner that all the required documents were already submitted and the petitioner again submitted the same vide

¶22

2

¶23

letter dated 14.09.2022 but no order with regard to his claim for compassionate appointment has been communicated to the petitioner so far.

¶24

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 2 along with the writ records who in turn is directed to verify the records of the case with respect to the submission of the petitioner as recorded above and also other materials which may be found on record. If the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is found in the record of the respondents, the respondent no. 2 is directed to expedite consideration of the claim of the petitioner of the compassionate appointment in terms of the applicable circular, if any, and in accordance with law.

¶25

9. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order before the respondent no. 2 along with a detailed representation and needful be done by the respondents by passing a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of filing of the detailed representation. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner through speed post.

¶26

10. It is further made clear that if any adverse order in connection with the claim is petitioner has already been passed, no fresh order need be passed and the respondent no. 2 shall only communicate such order to the petitioner through speed- post.

¶27

11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶29

Binit

¶30

3

Ravi Toppo v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Toppo v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suneet Kumar Singh Alias Pappu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Das Dabgar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sandeep Talan Vs the State of Jharkhand