Single Judge oral order dismissing a writ petition seeking direction for government employment on compassionate grounds due to father's death, holding the dismissal order is not impugned and no relief can be granted.
Direction for government employment on compassionate grounds refused; writ application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2013 (3) dt.21-01-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6238 of 2013
====================================================== 1. Ravi Shanker Sharma Son Of Late Vakil Singh Resident Of Village - Jalpura, P.O. - Masaurha, P.S. - Paliganj, District - Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER
The writ petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to provide employment in the Government as his father was killed by the extremists in the year 2003.
In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that on the death of the father of the petitioner, the wife of the deceased had made a claim for payment of compensation and on due consideration such payment was made. Several years thereafter, the petitioner filed a claim in 2009 for his appointment on compassionate ground, which was considered, rejected and communicated to him. Learned counsel for the State has rightly submitted that the said order is not under challenge in this writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2013 (3) dt.21-01-2016
application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of some other persons, similarly situated, recommendations were made for appointment on compassionate ground. He has relied on Annexure 8 to the writ application. However, there is nothing on the record to show that in the cases of those, who were recommended any compensation was claimed, therefore, no inference of similarity can be drawn. That apart, as noted above, the claim of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected by the respondents. The order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is not under challenge. He has placed reliance on an order dated 1.5.2009 passed in LPA No. 860 of 2002, whereby the order of learned Single Judge was set aside (Annexure A to the counter affidavit).In my view, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The writ application is accordingly dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
singh/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether direction for compassionate grounds appointment can be granted when compensation claim was already settled.
Whether similarity in treatment can be established when similar claimants claimed compensation first and only petitioners claim appointment.
Whether the impugned order rejecting compassionate appointment claim is challengeable when the PETITIONER DID NOT CHALLENGE REJECTED C15.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LPA No. 860 of 2002Referred¶15
Ravi Shanker Sharma
The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Home (Special), Government Of Bihar, Patna
The District Magistrate, Collectorate, Patna
The Deputy Collector (Establishment) Collectorate, Patna
Kishore Kumar Mandal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
