Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Ganjhu @ Suraj Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 2092 of 2021
----------
Suraj Ganjhu @ Suraj Ram ......... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti.
Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti.
District Establishment Deputy Collector, Khunti
District Treasury Deputy Collector, Khunti
The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
District Treasury Deputy Collector, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
-----------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Madan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nityanand Chouhdary, AC to SC (L&C)
----------
03/ 23.02.2022 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground.
3. As per the factual matrix, father of the petitioner was appointed as
peon in the year 1966 and after serving the Department for long years, died
in harness on 14.04.1986. After death of his father, the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on account of death of his father but the same
was rejected on 27.10.1986 on the ground that the application submitted by
the petitioner was not in prescribed format. It is the further case of the
petitioner that even family pension has not been fixed and hence, the
petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
4. Mr. Madan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
vociferously argues that it is the right of the petitioner to get compassionate
appointment since father of the petitioner died in harness in the year 1986
itself and as his mother was illiterate, she was not acquainted with the legal
procedure and as such, even though his case was rejected in the year 1986
itself, the mother of the petitioner did not prefer any representation and was
waiting for letter or response from the respondents. Learned counsel
accordingly submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and also for
fixation of family pension.
5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner has knocked
the door of this Court after lapse of more than 35 years from the death of
his father and as such, the writ petition itself is hopelessly time barred.
Learned counsel further submits that the compassionate appointment is not
a regular source of appointment but an exception, and the purpose and
object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of an
employee on his death, that may suddenly find itself in state of destitution
and the whole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family
to claim compassionate appointment. In the instant case, since the family of
the deceased employee has survived for more than 35 long years, no ground
for compassionate appointment is made available in favour of the petitioner.
Regarding fixation of family pension, learned counsel submits that the same
has already been fixed and the petitioner is getting the same.
6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no
case is made out for interference in the instant case. Admittedly, the case of
the petitioner was turned down in the year 1986 itself but neither the
petitioner nor his mother bothered to file any representation for
reconsideration of their cases and it is only after 36 years, the petitioner has
knocked the door of this Court for getting compassionate appointment. The
petitioner is silent over the said inordinate delay and nothing has been
whispered in the instant writ petition as to what has prevented the petitioner
from knocking the door of this Court for 36 long years. Admittedly, father
of the petitioner was the sole bread-earner of his family but any
appointment cannot be granted dehors the rules. Regarding family pension,
the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed, as submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has held that
appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. It must be provided for under the Rules.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs
State Of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 138, has held as under:-
"6. .................... The compassionate employment
cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period
which must be specified in the rules. The consideration
for such employment is not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable
the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at
the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the
compassionate employment cannot be claimed and
offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is
over."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs.
M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:-
"16. ...................
Thus, while considering a claim for employment on
compassionate ground, the following factors have to be
borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in
the absence of rules or regulations issued by the
Government or a public authority. The request is to be
considered strictly in accordance with the governing
scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any
authority to make compassionate appointment dehors
the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must
be preferred without undue delay and has to be
considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet
the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of
the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner
while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment
cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of
largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the
deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of
his death or incapacity, as the case may be."
9. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal
propositions and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition being devoid of
any merit, is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
