Dismissed

Most. Jawani Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Sept 2012L.P.A/637/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the appeal in limine. The widow of a deceased government servant, who was already receiving terminal benefits and family pension, claimed compassionate employment for her son and relief from penury. The court held the penury claim unbelievable and found the petition for her son's employment not maintainable by her.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal is dismissed in limine.

Most. Jawani Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No. 637 of 2012 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17057 of 2009 With Interlocutory Application No. 3099 of 2012 In

¶3

Letters Patent Appeal No. 637 of 2012.

¶4

====================================================== Most. Jawani Devi, W/o Late Sajjan Lal Nirala, R/o Village - Haldikhoda, P.S. - Kochadhaman, District - Kishanganj

¶5

.... .... Petitioner - Appellant Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea

¶8

The District Compassionate Appointment Committee through the District Magistrate, Kishanganj

¶9

The District Magistrate, Kishanganj

¶10

The District Magistrate, Purnea

¶11

.... .... Respondents - Respondents

¶12

====================================================== Appearance:

¶13

For the Appellant : Mr. Shoeb Alam and Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocates.

¶14

For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 7 and Mrs. A. Kumari, AC to SC 7. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶18

8 05-09-2012 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 3099 of 2012.

¶19

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 2 years and 6 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶20

It appears that against the impugned judgment and order dated 2^nd February 2010 passed by the learned single Judge,

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.637 of 2012 (8) dt.05-09-2012

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

the appellant pursued the remedy of review. While the appeal arising from the review preferred against the impugned order was pending, the present Appeal has been filed.

¶24

In the above circumstances, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 637 of 2012. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2^nd February 2010 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 17057 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶25

The writ petitioner is the widow of one Sajjan Lal Nirala, a Government servant. He passed away in harness on 3^rd November 2001. Pursuant to the death of the said Sajjan Lal Nirala, his son Kamla Prasad Sutgar from his first wife has been offered compassionate employment. The appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to claim compassionate employment for their son Mahavir Prasad, and in the alternative, to save her from penury. Learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal.

¶26

At the outset, we may note that the petition by the present appellant for compassionate employment to her son Mahavir Prasad was not maintainable. If the said Mahavir Prasad desired compassionate employment and were aggrieved, it was he who could have approached this Court. As to the penury, the appellant is totally silent about the terminal benefits received by her after the death of her husband Sajjan Lal Nirala.

¶27

Learned counsel Mr. Shoeb Alam has appeared for the appellant. He admits that the appellant has received the terminal benefits as well as she is in receipt of the family pension.

¶28

Patna High Court LPA No.637 of 2012 (8) dt.05-09-2012

¶29

3 / 3

¶30

It is, therefore, not believable that the appellant is suffering from penury; nor has the learned counsel pointed out any provision under the compassionate employment scheme for any monetary benefit on compassionate ground. The appellant is not entitled to either of the reliefs prayed for by her. The writ petition has rightly been rejected by the learned single Judge. Appeal is devoid of any merit. Appeal is dismissed in limine .

¶31

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶32

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶33

Dilip.

Most. Jawani Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most. Jawani Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Priya Timbar Patna Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The Secretary State Technical Vs Kant Lal Coudhary and Ors.

Kanchan Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

St. Michael's Education Association Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Mc.Dowell Co. Ltd. Vs State