Petitioner challenged an order rejecting his plea for compassionate appointment. The high court held that the complaint lacked merit as petitioner filed the writ after over thirty years, despite the initial complaint being pending years prior.
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.6117 of 2014
======================================================
.... Petitioner
Versus
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP XVIII
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks for quashing the order, dated 09.12.2013, as contained in Memo No. 912, issued by the District Magistrate East Champaran at Motihari, who rejected the petition of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner was working as Peon, Tube–well Division. Public Health and Engineering Department, West Champaran at Bettiah. The father of the petitioner died on 12.03.1987. The petitioner petitioned for appointment on compassionate ground on 19.01.1988, but, the authority kept the petition of the petitioner pending for consideration and vide order, dated 09.12.2013, the Appointment
Patna High Court CWJC No.6117 of 2014 (4) dt.10-10-2017
2/2
Committee, headed by the Collector, East Champaran at Motihari, rejected the petition of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the petition of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is barred by law of limitation. The petitioner filed the petition for appointment on 19.01.1988, but, on that date the petitioner was minor and, therefore, his petition was not considered. The petitioner filed another petition only after limitation of two years.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appointment Committee, headed by the Collector, East Champaran at Motihari, has illegally rejected the petition of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, but, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the simple ground that the petitioner moved this Court after more than thirty years from the date of the death of his father for appointment on compassionate ground. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the dependants of the bread-earner, who died in harness, but, the petitioner did not move the Court for long period of thirty years while the petition of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was kept pending.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed .
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
SA/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's complaint of illegal rejection of compassionate appointment petition due to law of limitation and minor status has merit.
Whether a writ petition filed over thirty years after the incident (death of father) and years after initial petition registration has merit for quashing of appointment rejection order.
Shashi Kumar
The State Of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department
The Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department
The Engineer-In-Chief, Minor Irrigation Department
The Superintending Engineer, Tube-Well Anchal
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
