Dismissed

Pappu Mallick v. Bihar State Electricity BOARDand

Patna HC22 Apr 2013CWJC/15749/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner after the father's death in harness. The petitioner had applied beyond the permissible limitation period. The Court held that lack of application within the prescribed time prevents interference with the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued for reconsideration of the claim.

Pappu Mallick Vs Bihar State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15749 of 2006

¶3

====================================================== Pappu Mallick, son of Late Gango Mallick, resident of village- Bihat, TolaJagir, Post- Bihat, P.S. Barauni, Distt. Begusarai

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey, Patna.

¶8

The Director of Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey, Patna.

¶9

The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Koshi Electric Supply Area, Saharsa, Bihar.

¶10

The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Katihar, Bihar.

¶11

The Deputy Director of Personnel, Koshi Electric Supply Area, Saharsa, Bihar.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma

¶15

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Addl.Standing Counsel, BSEB

¶16

Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma

¶17

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶18

5 22-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶19

By the impugned order/communication dated 11.08.2005 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of respondent General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer (respondent no.4), claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground due to death of his father in harness, has been rejected.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Gango Mallick, was a permanent ClassIV employee of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board and while he was posted and working as Sweeper at Electric Supply Sub-Division, Katihar, he died in harness on 23.03.1998 leaving

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.15749 of 2006 (5) dt.22-04-2013

¶22

2/3

¶23

behind him his four sons including the petitioner as his heirs and legal representatives. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for his compassionate appointment within the prescribed period of limitation before the competent authority, yet by the impugned order/ communication dated 11.08.2005 (Annexure-1) his claim has been rejected as time barred. In support of his above contentions he has placed reliance on the documents, as contained in Annexure-11 brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on the averments made in the counter-affidavit.

¶25

After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that father of the petitioner died in harness on 23.03.1998. There is also no dispute that at the relevant time father of the petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee of the respondent Board. However, there is serious dispute with respect to the petitioner’s claim that he applied for his compassionate appointment within the prescribed period of limitation of five years. According to the case of the respondents, the petitioner did not submit his application within the prescribed period of limitation of five years; rather he submitted his application on 25.07.2003, i.e. after expiry of five years. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that terminal benefits have already been given to the widow of the deceased. This Court further finds that after death of the father of the petitioner in harness on 23.03.1998, more than fifteen years have elapsed, and the petitioner and his family members have been able to maintain themselves even

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.15749 of 2006 (5) dt.22-04-2013

¶27

3/3

¶28

without getting compassionate appointment.

¶29

As a matter of fact compassionate appointment is given under a prescribed scheme to a dependant of a deceased employee dying in harness by way of compassion because of sudden death of the bread earner and in order to avoid penury to the family of the deceased employee. If the compassionate appointment is not given within a reasonable period of time, the degree of compassion gradually reduces with the passage of time. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or by way of inheritance.

¶30

Taking into consideration all the aspects particularly the fact that more than fifteen years have elapsed since the death of the deceased employee, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order/ communication dated 11.08.2005 (Annexure-1) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. This Court is also not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner on merit for such compassionate appointment.

¶31

In the result, the application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶32

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶33

BTiwary/-

Pappu Mallick v. Bihar State Electricity BOARDand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Mallick v. Bihar State Electricity BOARDand

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

Dileep Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Arun Kumar Verma Vs The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and Ors.

Shyam Bihari Bhatt Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Bilash Prasad Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Parmeshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.