Jharkhand High Court
Hemlal Roy vs Union Of India on 21 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6124 of 2015
Hemlal Roy --- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Central Silk Board,
Ministry of Textile, New Delhi
2. Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textile,
Bangalore
3. Dy. Director, Regional Office, Central Silk Board,
Nagri, Ranchi
4. Senior Scientist, Basic Speed Production & Training
Centre, Madhupur, Deoghar --- Respondents
----
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
----
08/21.03.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By the impugned judgment, learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Circuit Bench at Ranchi has dismissed O.A. No. 18/2013(R) with which the
petitioner is aggrieved. Petitioner had approached the learned Tribunal for
compassionate appointment on death of his mother in harness on 23rd August,
2008. The applicant has submitted his application on 8 th February, 2009, which
was rejected on 9th July, 2009 for the reasons that the applicant's mother was
engaged as Farm worker on casual basis and later on converted to Time Scale
Farm Workers / Skilled Farm Workers, who are not regular employees of the
Board, nor officiating against any sanctioned or permanent post. They are on
muster roll of the Board eligible for daily wages with other benefits like VDA,
EPF etc. applicable to the industrial labourers. Since 2008-09, practice of
accommodating the dependent of such deceased workers on compassionate
ground subject to availability of work, has been stopped. It was also found that the
applicant aged about 37 years, was married and was cultivator earning
Rs. 20,000/- per annum which shows that he was not dependent upon his mother.
He has received death cum retirement benefits of his mother i.e. Gratuity, EPF etc.
Learned Tribunal considered the case of the parties based on the pleadings on
record and held as under:
"11. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the main object to
provide compassionate appointment is to enable the family to
tide over the sudden financial crisis which he faces due to death
of the sole breadearner.
12. In the instant case, the respondents did not find his as a
deserving candidate for compassionate appointment on above
mentioned grounds. Moreover, the deceased employee
concerned was a temporary post holder and as per the decision
of the department in 2008-09, they have not recruited anybody
on compassionate appointment. Moreover, the respondents
rejected his case in the year 2009 itself and he has approached
this Tribunal in 2013 only. Thus, the main object to grant
compassionate appointment has been frustrated after a lapse of
long time. As such, this case is squarely covered by the decision
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh
Kumar Nagpal (supra).
13. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the decision of the respondents. Accordingly, the OA is
dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to improve the case
of the applicant beyond what is borne out from the records. There was also delay
of four years in approaching the learned Tribunal in the year 2013. Therefore,
upon consideration of the materials on record, we are of the considered opinion
that learned Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference by this
Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Neither
was the applicant's mother regular employee, nor was the petitioner dependent
upon her. The application was also barred by delay. Relying upon the case of
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in [(1994) 4 SCC 138],
the Tribunal has rightly refused to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this writ
application is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Deepak Roshan, J)
jk/
