Most. Rina Ghosh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 771 Jhar

                                   1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           W.P.(S) No.1207 of 2009
                                        -------

        Most. Rina Ghosh                               ...     ...     Petitioner
                                Versus
        1.     The State of Jharkhand.

2. Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Dumka, Jharkhand.

4. Deputy Collector, (Establishment), Dumka, Jharkhand

5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Dhanbad Electrical Division, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

6. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electrical Division, Dumka, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner :Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Res.State : Ms. Shivani Kapoor, A.C. to S.C.II

-------

09/18.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through

V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as

contained in letter no.50 dated 05.02.2009 (Annexure-9),

whereby the representation of the petitioner for

appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected

on the ground that she is over age and further she does not

possess required qualification.

3. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that this is second round of litigation.

Previously, the petitioner had challenged the rejection order

dated 24.04.2007, whereby the claim of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment was rejected and subsequently

this Court vide its order dated 27.08.2008 had directed the

respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner

for her compassionate appointment in the light of the

direction contained in government circular/notification

referred to by the petitioner.

He further submits that the petitioner had

specifically urged that in the matter of compassionate

appointment the head of concerned department has the

power to relax the maximum age of the applicant and

further vide another notification dated 30.11.1984, the

educational criteria has been waived in respect of female

whose candidature is to be considered for appointment on

compassionate ground.

However, ignoring the specific direction given by

this Court in the earlier writ application being W.P.(S)

No.815 of 2008; the respondents in most mechanical

manner rejected the application on same grounds. Learned

counsel further submits that the ground of rejection is

almost same and similar what they took earlier in rejecting

the claim of the petitioner and certainly the inaction of the

respondents has ultimately forced the petitioner to attain

the age of superannuation. As such, in view of the latest

judgment, if not damage; but some compensation may be

directed to be paid to this petitioner because admittedly;

even in the second round of litigation, the respondents

have not dealt the government notification and in a sense

they have not complied the order of this Court in true letter

and spirit.

Before concluding his argument, Mr. Singh

referred to the order dated 04.04.2019 passed in W.P.(S)

No.4758 of 2017, wherein this Court has held at

paragraph no.20 as under:-

"20. In the instant case, as held earlier, I find that the inaction on part of the respondents in not disposing of the application for grant of compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner is unpardonable. The respondents sat over the matter and till date has not disposed of the application, rather contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that 20 years have gone by, thus, there is no necessity to grant compassionate appointment. It is unfair on the part of the respondents to take benefit of their own wrong, which should not also be allowed. Further, if they are allowed to go scot free, these inactions will continue and will increase by few folds to deprive the family of the poor workman, who will be left at a helpless state, who cannot even confront the might of the public sector authorities. Thus, this is a fit case to impose exemplary damages. In view of the aforesaid position, I direct the respondents-the Central Coalfields Limited to pay damages of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) to the petitioner."

Relying upon the aforesaid judgment petitioner

submits that her claim for monetary compensation/damage

should be considered because at no point of time the

petitioner was at default.

4. Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned counsel for the

respondent-State submits that there is no error in the

impugned order and the petitioner's case has been duly

considered. Even otherwise, at present the petitioner would

have attained the age of superannuation. She further

referred to the minutes of meeting of the Compassionate

Committee held at Dumka Collectorate and submits that

the ground of over age was very well there; as such no

interference is required in the impugned order.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the documents annexed and the

averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that

admittedly; now the widow is about to attain the age of

superannuation. It is also an admitted fact that she had

filed application for compassionate appointment within

time; however, due to some reasons or the other, her claim

could not be processed and certainly at this stage, she

cannot be given benefits of compassionate appointment.

However, after going through the tenor of the

order referred to hereinabove, without interfering with the

impugned order dated 05.02.2009 (Annexure-9), whereby

the claim of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground has been rejected; the instant writ

application is, hereby, disposed of by giving liberty to the

petitioner to file an application for monetary compensation

before the respondent no.2 and if any such representation

is filed; same shall considered sympathetically and an

appropriate order shall be passed in the light of order

passed in W.P.(S) No.4758 of 2017 as in the instant case

also the deceased employee died on 27.04.2000 and claim

of the petitioner was rejected for the first time on 24.04.07;

thus the respondents took seven years in rejecting the

claim of the widow-petitioner.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ

application stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-