Partly allowed

Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Sept 2022CWJC/1030/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim filed by the petitioner, holding it was passed by an incorrect authority without following Full Bench guidelines regarding sibling employment criteria.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.01.2019 is quashed. Liberty granted to petitioner to submit sibling income details to respondent no. 6 within four weeks for fresh consideration.

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1030 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Amit Kumar Son of Late Shambhu Ram Resident of Village- Loribandh, Police Station- Karakat, District- Rohtas.

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar.

¶6

The Principal Secretary Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Chief Engineer Irrigation Creation, Water Resources Department, Gaya. 4. The Superintending Engineer Irrigation Circle, Water Resources Department, Gaya.

¶8

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Division, Water Resources Department, Gaya.

¶9

The District Magistrate cum Chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gaya.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha 3 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rewti Kant Suman, AC to SC-11 ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶13

6 27-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

¶14

2. Hard copy of the rejoinder is being taken on record.

¶15

3. By communication dated 19.01.2019, the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of death of his father in harness on 19.01.2016, while working as a Grade-IV employee, Irrigation Division, Gaya, has been rejected.

¶16

4. It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.1030 of 2021(6) dt.27-09-2022 2/3

¶18

rejection suffers from two infirmities. The first submission is that rejection is not by the competent authority as consideration is required to be done by the District Compassionate Committee, whereas the rejection is by the Chief Engineer of Irrigation and Water Resources Department. The second submission is that the reason assigned for rejection is employment of the petitioner’s sibling in the Central Reserve Police Force, which also is unsustainable to reject the petitioner’s claim. Specific reliance is placed on decision of Full Bench in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 PLJR 951 specifically paragraphs 48 and 49 thereof. The Full Bench has held that the fact of sibling being in employment per se cannot be made the basis for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment and the authority is required to examine whether the employment generates sufficient income for sustaining the dependents of the deceased.

¶19

5. Learned State counsel submits that the rejection is in accordance with departmental instruction which has been quoted in the order itself.

¶20

6. However, with respect to the petitioner’s specific assertion that rejection is not by the competent authority, there is

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1030 of 2021(6) dt.27-09-2022 3/3

¶22

no denial or dispute in the counter-affidavit on this point.

¶23

7. Considering the rival submissions, this Court would observe that the rejection of petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment under communication dated 19.01.2019 is unsustainable as the same is not done by the competent authority but also without examining the petitioner’s claim on the parameters laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra). The order dated 19.01.2019 is quashed.

¶24

8. For enabling consideration of the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner is allowed liberty to submit details in respect of income generated by employment of his sibling vis-avis the dependents of the deceased employee so as to facilitate consideration as per parameters laid down in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra) within four weeks before the respondent no. 6.

¶25

9. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above

¶26

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶27

SUMIT/-

¶28

Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravikant Ranjan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shyamanand Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sarita Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pinki Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Kiran Rai @ Kiran Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.