Rohit Kumar Das vs State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2886 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(S) No. 6245 of 2019
                                         With
                                 I.A. No. 6602 of 2022

                Rohit Kumar Das                        ...       ...    Petitioner
                                     Versus
            State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary and others
                                            ...       ...        Respondents
                                     ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhas Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate

---

06/27.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No. 6602 of 2022 has been filed seeking amendment of the present writ petition wherein the petitioner has challenged the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 28.08.2021 so far as it relates to the petitioner. He submits that the decision which is sought to be impugned is a subsequent development and therefore the interlocutory application may be allowed. The learned counsel has also submitted that the order impugned in the present case in the main writ petition is letter No. 724 dated 06.06.2019 (Annexure-8) whereby also the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay. The learned counsel submits that the tenure of the order as Annexure-8 to the writ petition and the decision dated 28.08.2021 is the same.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has no serious objection to the amendment sought for by the petitioner.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that there has been a subsequent decision dated 28.08.2021 passed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, whereby, interalia, the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. Subsequent development is a sequel to the impugned order of the main writ petition and if the prayer for amendment is allowed, the same will not change the nature of the writ petition in any manner.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 6602 of 2022 is allowed and is directed to form a part of the main writ petition.

W.P (S) No. 6245 of 2019

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner had expired on 08.03.2012 and as per the circular annexed along with the writ petition as contained in Annexure-10, it was specifically mentioned that no time period has been prescribed for filing application for grant of compassionate appointment but for the purposes of appointment, the age limit is to be strictly followed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to seek instructions and file a supplementary affidavit in the present case bringing on record the circulars/any judicial pronouncements which was applicable on the date of death of the father of the petitioner with regard to the time limit for grant of compassionate appointment. He is also directed to bring on record the subsequent circulars/order passed by this court or judgments by which the time limit of 5 years was fixed.

7. Post this case on 03.08.2022 in the supplementary cause list.

8. Let this matter be treated as part heard.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit