Jharkhand High Court
Amit Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2021
-1- W.P. (S) No. 981 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 981 of 2018
Amit Lohra, aged about 30 years, son of late Gandur Lohra,
resident of Village- Khatanga, P.O. Suganu, P.S. Sadar, District-
Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.
Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum West (Jharkhand)
3. Additional Deputy Collector (Establishment), Singhbhum West,
Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum West (Jharkhand)
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District-
Singhbhum West (Jharkhand)
5. District Welfare Officer, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District-
Singhbhum West (Jharkhand)
6. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, P.O. &
P.S. Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum West (Jharkhand)
7. Executive Engineer, Building Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa,
District- Singhbhum West (Jharkhand) ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
-----
06/04.02.2021. Heard Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view
of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising
due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any
technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been
heard on merit.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing
the decision dated 10.02.2016 of the District Compassionate
Committee, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, contained in Annexure-6 of the writ
petition.
-2- W.P. (S) No. 981 of 2018
4. The father of the petitioner was employed as a Peon (Anusevak) in
First Class Veterinary Dispensary, Jagarnathpur (Ranchi). The father of the
petitioner died in harness on 14.07.2008. The death certificate is annexed
as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The petitioner was a non-matriculate at
the time of death of his father. There was no earning member in the family.
The petitioner was the only member to meet out the expenses of the family.
The petitioner applied for the appointment on compassionate ground in the
year 2008 itself. However, the case of the petitioner was kept pending for
years together and finally by the impugned order dated 10.02.2016, the
claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the
ground that the petitioner is not a matriculate and the educational
certificate issued to the petitioner is not from a recognized school as per the
resolution dated 02.09.2011.
5. Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the
impugned order on the ground that the circular relied by the respondents
has come into effect on 02.09.2011, whereby, matriculation was required
for appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that the
circular was made effective w.e.f. the year 2011, whereas, the father of the
petitioner died in the year 2008 and the application was filed for
compassionate appointment in the same year and that is why 2011 circular
has got no retrospectivity effect.
6. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits
as the petitioner was not matriculate, the claim of the petitioner has been
rightly rejected by the respondents as per the resolution dated 02.09.2011.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into the
materials on the record, it transpires that the father of the petitioner died in
-3- W.P. (S) No. 981 of 2018
the year 2008. An application was also made in the year 2008 for
appointment on the compassionate ground by the petitioner. However, no
decision was taken on such application and finally on 10.02.2016, the case
of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was
studying in a school, which was not recognized and the petitioner was not
matriculate. In view of the resolution dated 02.09.2011, matriculation is
necessary and that is why the case of the petitioner has been rejected. The
Court finds that the application was made by the petitioner in the year
2008. However, the same was considered in the year 2016 after almost
eight years of submission of such application. The circular has come into
effect on 02.09.2011. There is no mention in the said resolution that it will
be operative retrospectively. It is well settled position that at the time of
death of the father of the petitioner, earlier scheme was made applicable.
The matriculation certificate was made essential w.e.f. the year 2011 and
prior to that matriculation was not necessary. The case of the petitioner was
required to be considered in light of the earlier scheme which was prevalent
in the year 2008. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank v.
Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729. Paragraph 20 of the said
judgment is quoted herein below:
"20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable
to the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being
provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with
compassionate employment not being an alternate method of
public employment. If these factors are kept in mind, it would
be noticed that the respondents had the wherewithal at the
relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the
unfortunate situation which they were faced with. Thus,
looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim
benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant
Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee,
-4- W.P. (S) No. 981 of 2018
which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of
the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank. It is not for the
courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the
terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently
emphasised by this Court in State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand."
8. There is no doubt that proposition of law is very clear that
compassionate appointment is a concession and not a matter of right, but in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the application of the
petitioner was kept pending for years together and only in the year 2016,
the same was rejected, which requires to be considered by the District
Compassionate Committee, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa as per previous
scheme. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.02.2016, contained in
Annexure-6 of the writ petition is quashed, so far as the petitioner is
concerned. The matter is remitted back to the District Compassionate
Committee, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa for considering the case of the
petitioner afresh in light of the discussions made herein above and for
passing an appropriate reasoned order, within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
