Indrajeet Singh vs Jharkhand Mineral Area ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2981 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(S) No. 2237 of 2021
                                             ----

1. Indrajeet Singh

2. Fulwanti Devi ... Petitioners

-versus-

1. Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, through its Chairman-

cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad.

2. Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad.

3. Accounts Officer, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad.

                                                        ...    Respondents
                                   ----
                  CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                      THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
                                           ----

For the Petitioners : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate

----

4/ 18.08.2021 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10.30 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, particularly:-

(a) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to show cause as to how and under what authority the concerned respondents have withheld the remaining amount of death cum retirement benefits due on account of the husband of the petitioner No.2 namely late Ram Ayodhaya Singh, who died in harness on 30.12.2012 while serving as Daftari, Accounts Departments, JMADA, Dhanbad;

(b) For a further writ / order / direction commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith pay the following amounts due to the petitioners on account of the husband of the petitioner No.2 namely late Ram Ayodhaya Singh;

i. Difference amount of Death Gratuity; ii. Difference amount on account of Benefits of Assured Career Progression;

iii. Difference Amount of Unused Leave;

iv. Amount of up-to-date Dearness Allowances; v. Difference amount on account of revised Group Insurance;

vi. Interest on un-credited amount of provident fund; vii. Difference amount on account of 5th & 6th Pay Revision; viii. Amount deducted on account of Audit Objection; ix. Other admissible benefits;

x. Statutory, Compensatory & Penal interest on the aforementioned amounts;

(c) For a further writ / order / direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith appoint the petitioner No.1 in the service of the respondent authority on compassionate ground in accordance with their rules and circulars in appropriate post as per his qualification.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.1619 of 2013 and, thereafter, some retiral benefits have been paid, but the rest are still due. She further submits that the husband of the petitioner No.2 died on 30.12.2012 in harness, thus, petitioner No.1, being his son, should be appointed on compassionate ground.

4. Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-JMADA submits that so far as retiral benefits are concerned, appropriate decision will be taken and if any amount is found admissible, same would be paid to the petitioners. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, after a lapse of nearly 9 years of death of the employee, right to be appointed on compassionate ground stands extinguished, thus, the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. He further relies on the decision of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 654 of 2017 and submits that in the establishment of MADA, it has been held that no compassionate appointments should be given.

5. After hearing the parties, so far as retiral/death benefits are concerned, I direct the petitioners to approach the respondent No.2, making claim before him in respect of balance retiral benefits. On receipt of such representation, admitted retiral benefits should be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. If some portion of the claim is rejected or refused by the respondents, reasons thereof should also be communicated to the petitioners within the same period.

6. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, law is well settled. It has been settled by the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment. The very object of giving compassionate appointment is for tiding over the sudden crises, which the family of an employee suffers on account of death of the employee. Considerable passage of time dilutes the claim of compassionate appointment which ultimately gets extinguished. In this case, it is nearly 9 years from the date when the father of the petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 has expired. This passage of 9 years, in view of this Court, has extinguished the right of the petitioner No.1 to get appointment on compassionate ground. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Bhagwan Singh reported in (1995) 6 SCC 476, the prayer for compassionate appointment, as claimed by the petitioners, cannot be accepted and, thus, the same is hereby rejected.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02