Petitioner sought quashing of Memo refusing compassionate appointment due to 11-year delay. Court held financial purpose frustrated as family settled. Petition dismissed.
Petition for quashing of Memo no. 1209 dated 15.12.2008 was 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9843 of 2013
=========================================================== Ganesh Kumar Pandey Son of Late Nathuni Pandey, resident of village- Badaki Nainijor, P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar 3. The District Education Officer, Buxar. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Mishra and Anand Kr. Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-07-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioner is seeking quashing of Memo no. 1209 dated 15.12.2008 whereby and whereunder the District Compassionate Committee, Buxar presided over by District Magistratecum-Chairman refused to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment.
The father of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Shri Ganpati Chakani High School, Hathilpur, Brahmpur, District-Buxar and died in harness in the year 1995.
After more than 11 years, the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment claiming to be only son of the father.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9843 of 2013 dt.21-07-2016
2/2
The Committee considered his case and found that he is not entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment on account of delay, in view of judgment reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically decided that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of employment, merely it is giving privilege when the family bread earner has died and the family comes to distress and penury, the benefit is extended to the family, the appointment is not given to the petitioner of his father, but because of bread winner has died and family became financial instable to carry the load.
The case of the petitioner is that his father was an employee of the State Government, died in harness, to mitigate the financial distress, the petitioner should be appointed.
As already 11 years have lapsed, the purpose of compassionate appointment is frustrated, as the family of the deceased has already settled, requires no any financial assistance, in such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Mahesh/-
| Mahesh/- |
(Shivaji Pandey, J) |
|---|---|
| AFR/NAFR NAFR |
|
| CAV DATE | |
| UploadingDate 26.07.16 |
|
| Transmission | |
| Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of compassionate appointment can be granted after a delay of 11 years.
Whether the purpose of financial relief is frustrated if the family has already settled.
Whether the High Court can quash the refusal of the compassionate appointment committee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(1994) 4 SCC 138 (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana) · Who else cites this
Ganesh Kumar Pandey
The State of Bihar
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
