Petition challenging compassionate appointment of respondent 5. Court held petitioner has no locus standi as appointment was made before 1977 scheme and remains until superannuation.
The petition is dismissed as being wrongly filed and completely misconceived.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8202 of 2013
=========================================================== Ravi Shankar Kumar S/o Nirmal Thakur, R/o Village- Areroj, P.S.- Gobindganj, District- East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AAG-12
Mr. Uday Kumar
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-05-2016
It appears that the present application has been filed raising a grievance against the appointment of Respondent No. 5, namely, Prabhunath Thakur who was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of Hari Thakur.
The ground has been taken in the writ application that son-in-law cannot be said to be dependant on his father-in-law and so much so when other nearest heir i.e. wife is alive, the question of the appointment of son-in-law does not arise, especially, in a situation when she herself has shown her desire for her appointment on account of death of her husband, but instead of appointing her,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8202 of 2013 dt.17-05-2016
2/2
Respondent no. 5 was appointed illegally.
It appears from the averment made in the writ application as well as in the counter affidavit, after death of Hari Thakur, Respondent no. 5 was appointed.
It is claimed by the State, as there was no scheme for appointment of compassionate ground before year 1977, the scheme of compassionate appointment has been introduced in the year 1977.
From the record it appears that Respondent no. 5 was appointed in the year 1971, has already superannuated in the year 2012 and after his superannuation, this present application has been filed and it does not show, in what capacity, the petitioner has filed the present application, does not emerge, he is the person aggrieved, has locus standi to challenge the appointment of Respondent no. 5.
In such view of the matter, this petition has wrongly been filed, is completely misconceived. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
| Mahesh/- | |
|---|---|
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
| CAV DATE | |
| UploadingDate | 30.5.16 |
| Transmission Date |
Ravi Shankar Kumar
The State of Bihar
Prabhunath Thakur
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
