Rakesh Kumar Jyotishi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Department of Home

The petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jyotishi has filed this writ petition with a prayer for issuance of direction(s) upon the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment against death of his father late Tarani Sen Jyotishi, who died on 12.09.2014 while on duty as a Home Guard.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that his father Tarani Sen Jyotishi was appointed as Home Guard constable and his enrollment No.1462. Late Tarani Sen Jyotishi was posted in the office of District Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guard, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur (Respondent No.3). He was later deputed in UCIL, Narwapahad, Ghatshila as Home Guard. The petitioner has made out the case that while his father was on duty, he was run over by a bus on 12.09.2014 at 8:30A.M. due to which he succumbed to his injuries. The petitioner has filed an application for his appointment against accidental death of his father on duty, but this representation was considered and the same was rejected on the ground that late Tarani Sen Jyotishi did not die while he was on duty.

¶16

It is case of the respondents that the rule for compassionate appointment in the Home Guard was framed in the year 2014, which came into effect from 20.10.2014, whereas father of the petitioner died prior to it, as there was no rule for compassionate appointment in the service of Home Guard, the case of the petitioner has not been considered coupled with the fact that father of the petitioner did not die on duty.

¶17

-2-

¶18

Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in 2004 2 JCR 192, where learned single Bench of this Court has ordered to give compassionate appointment against the death of Home Guard who was killed in an encounter with extremists. It was held that:- “It is therefore, clear that the Home Guard while on duty shall be deemed to be a public servant and the provisions of Bihar Police Manual shall be applicable to the Home Guards excepting such provision which is repugnant to any of the provisions of Bihar Home Guard Acts and the rules made thereunder.”

¶19

Reliance has been placed upon decision of this Court reported in 2006 4 JCR 465 in the case of Chanda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand, wherein it was held that in case of Home Guard volunteer being killed in harness question of compassionate appointment has already been addressed, considering the decision reported in 2004 2 JCR 192 in the case of Gayatri Devi Vs. The State of Jharkhand.

¶20

Reliance has also been placed upon decision of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.3460 of 2011 dated 28.04.2017 in the case of Anima Devi Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others , wherein the learned Single Bench of this Court has held that if an employee was on the way to join his duty and he died due to an accident on the way, he will be assumed to be on the duty.

¶21

It was submitted that in the light of order passed in W.P.(S) No.3460 of 2011 in the case of Anima Devi Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others where a person was assumed to be on duty, while on the way to join his duty, by same analogy, if the person died due to accident while returning from his duty will be deemed to be on duty.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that after 2014 when the rules of the Home Guards came into effect, special provision was provided for appointment on compassionate ground to the kin of such Home Guards who died during the course of their duty. However, prior to this rule coming into force, by way of several judicial pronouncement the benefit of compassionate appointment was extended to the kin of home guards who died during the course of their duty. The facts that the father

¶23

-3-

¶24

of the petitioner died while he was returning from duty will amount to the fact that he was on duty when he met with an accident.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order(s) reconsidering the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶26

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶27

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶28

Jay/-

Rakesh Kumar Jyotishi v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Department of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Jyotishi v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Department of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasida Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Srikant Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anand Kumar Sao Alias Anand Sao Alias Billo Alias Anant Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Usha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

Ghanshyam Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand