Priya Mohanty vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2902 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
        L.P.A. No. 242 of 2023
Priya Mohanty, aged about 32 years, Daughter of Late Bhagat Charan
Mohanty, Wife of Avinash Das, Resident of 43J, Mandir Path No.3,
Bhatia Basti, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, District- East Singhbhum.
                                            ...   ...    ...   Appellant
                   Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
   Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building,
   H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
   Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building,
   H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
4. The Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Project Building,
   H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi
   Project Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
   Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.      ...       ...     ...    Respondents
                   ---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
             SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                   ---------
For the Appellant:         Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
                           Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P. III.
                   ---------
06/Dated: 16.08.2023

      Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

passed the following, (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

                         ORDER

1) This Letters Patent Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the

Letters Patent, is calling in question the judgment dated 03.04.2023

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.25 of 2021,

whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed.

2) In the writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction

upon the respondents to show cause as to under what authority of law

the respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment on the pretext that the appointment of the

deceased-father of the petitioner was not against a sanctioned post

and it was contrary to the appointment rules.

3) The facts of the case reveal that the father of the petitioner,

namely, Bhagat Charan Mohanty was appointed in the post of Peon

vide Memo No.1218 dated 27.09.1980. The late father of the

petitioner died in harness on 13.01.2015. The petitioner-appellant

along with other family members of the deceased suffered severe

constraints and faced financial difficulties. Thus, on account of the

death of her father she made an application for approval by the

Government of Jharkhand for compassionate appointment. Such

application was forwarded to the Secretary cum Commissioner of

Commercial Taxes, Ranchi vide letter dated 20.08.2015 and the

petitioner was directed to furnish an affidavit with respect to No

Objection Certificate and declaration from the rest of the family

members. Such affidavit and declaration was furnished by the

petitioner. When the application of the petitioner was not considered

by the concerned authorities, she approached this Court by filing

W.P.(S) No. 545 of 2019 which was disposed of on 11.03.2019 with

direction to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent

No. 4 who, in turn, was directed to pass an appropriate order on such

application within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of the order. In pursuance of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.545

of 2019, the petitioner made a representation before respondent No.

4. Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 03.05.2019 rejected the claim

of the petitioner mentioning that the appointment of the father of the

petitioner was de hors the appointment rule, which led to filing of the

writ petition out of which this present Letters Patent Appeal is arising.

4) The learned Single Judge took into consideration the case of

State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Shankar Kumar, L.P.A. No. 135 of

2021, and held that once an illegal appointment has been made, it

cannot be cured later on, but the irregular appointment is capable of

being cured and, therefore, it was further held that appointment of the

father of the appellant-petitioner was in illegal manner, therefore, the

writ petition was dismissed.

5) The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Rajendra Krishna,

would draw attention of the Court to the appointment order, i.e.,

Annexure-1, which shows that Bhagat Charan Mohanty was

appointed as Peon as per the order passed by the Joint

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur Zone. Along with

him, three other persons were also appointed. Such appointment was

made on a temporary basis. In pursuance of such order, the father of

the petitioner joined his posting. He was not only allowed to discharge

his duties, his pay scale has been fixed. In fact, his service book was

also opened by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar on

30.12.1981 and column 3 of the first page, a pay scale of Rs.155-1-

160-2-190 has been reflected under the column

substantive/officiating. Thus, it is clear that not only the petitioner's

father was appointed, but his service book was also opened in his

name. It is further revealed that he has been granted increments

during his tenure as a Peon. He was also transferred to different

places. After his death on 13.01.2015, Office of the Principal

Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi issued a letter No.PR-

2/2081638346/F/1609/2016-17/4278 on 25.05.2016 intimating the

District Treasury Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur that the PPO

No. 141654514 issued in favour of Smt. Menka Mohanty, W/o. Sri

Bhagat Charan Mohanty, ex-Padchar, with request to arrange for

family pension from the said Treasury @ Rs.5,360/- per month.

6) Thus, it is clear that not only the petitioner's father was

appointed as a Class-IV employee, his service book was opened, a

pay of scale was given, he was granted increment, he was transferred

from one post to another and in the process he served for 35 years. In

the meantime, a sanctioned post of the Peon has also been created in

the concerned department. However, learned counsel for the State

would submit that the petitioner was never regularized in the post and

therefore, his legal heirs are not entitled to rehabilitation assistance as

per the provisions guiding such appointments.

7) However, we are of the opinion that if a poor Class-IV employee

works for 35 years and all the benefits that was available to a normal

and regular employee like fixation of pay-scale, grant of increment,

transfer and payment of family pension, that too on the order of the

Principal Accountant General for the State, the State cannot take the

plea that he was not appointed regularly and, therefore, his legal heirs

are entitled to be extended the benefit of the rehabilitation assistance

by giving employment to one of his dependents.

8) In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that learned

Single Judge committed error on record in not allowing the application

and the State is at fault in misinterpreting the facts of this case and

not taking a decision properly. In that view of the matter, this Letters

Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 03.04.2023 is hereby

set aside. The Writ application is accordingly allowed. A mandamus

be issued to the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner in a

suitable post within 60 days, hence.

9) Let this order be communicated to the respondents at the cost

of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file requisites in the

Registry for communication of the order.

10) There shall be no order as to costs.

11) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

12) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) Manoj/MM