Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Sunder Manjhi Aged About 33 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 582 of 2023
Shyam Sunder Manjhi aged about 33 years, so of Ram Chandra Manjhi,
resident of village Sarath, PO and PS Sarath, District Deoghar
.... Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Joint Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, PO and PS
Dhurwa, District Ranchi
3.The Deputy Secretary, Personnel Adminitrative Reforms & Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, PO and PS
Dhurwa, District Ranchi
4.The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, PO and PS Deoghar, District
Deoghar
5.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur, PO and PS Madhupur, District
Deoghar
6.The Circle Officer, Sarath, PO and PS Sarath, District Deoghar
... Respondents
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate
For the State : Md. Shahabuddin, SC-VII
---------------
22nd January 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21st August 2023
passed in WP(S) No. 2701 of 2019.
2. By this order, the writ Court rejected the challenge laid by the
appellant to the order contained in letter dated 6 th March 2017 by which
his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected.
3. The writ Court in its order dated 21st August 2023 passed in
WP(S) No. 2701 of 2019 has held as under:
"It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner had died in
harness on 05.01.2011 and the application was made within time by the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, However since the
petitioner had submitted an invalid certificate which was contrary to the
requirements of educational qualification his claim was rejected and once
the petitioner has passed Madhyama Sanskrit Examination in the year
2016 an application was once again made for compassionate appointment
which was rejected vide letter dated 06.03.2017.
The earlier application of the petitioner was rejected by the
District Compassionate Committee on the ground that he had not fulfilled
the educational qualification as the same was one of the criteria for being
considered for compassionate appointment and though the petitioner had
subsequently obtained necessary educational qualification but the same
was also beyond the period of five years and, therefore, the impugned
letter dated 06.03.2017 has rightly rejected his claim for compassionate
appointment. The circular which is the basis of rejection for the second
time vide letter dated 06.03.2017 has to be strictly construed and if a
claimant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria within the time specified in
the said circular the same would not be made applicable to such case.
In view of the aforesaid findings, therefore, I do not find any
merit in this writ application which accordingly stands disposed of."
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the degree
obtained from Hindi Vidhyapith at Deoghar has been approved by the
judgment dated 10th May 2022 passed in WP(C) No. 3115 of 2015 with
analogous cases and such a degree is now the valid degree for
appointment.
5. The father of the appellant died on 5th January 2011 and at that
time the appellant had a degree from Hindi Vidhyapith at Deoghar. This is
not in dispute that as on the date of death of the father of the appellant a
degree from Hindi Vidhyapith was not recognized as a valid degree for
appointment under the Government of Jharkhand. However, the case set
up by the appellant is that he obtained a degree equivalent to
Matriculation from Jharkhand Academic Counsel by qualifying in the
Madhyama Sanskrit Examination, 2016. The appellant moved another
application for compassionate appointment on the basis of such a
qualification but his claim was again rejected. This time, the ground of
rejection is that the application was made beyond the period of five years.
6. This needs to be remembered that the scheme for
compassionate appointment does not conform to the constitutional
requirements under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
Nonetheless, keeping in mind the distress of the family which has lost the
bread earner, such schemes are approved by the Courts. In any event, a
dependent of the deceased employee cannot claim a vested right for
compassionate appointment even though there is a scheme framed by the
State of Jharkhand. This is by now well-settled that a scheme for
compassionate appointment must be implemented within 4-corners of the
scheme. The applicant who is eligible under the scheme for
compassionate appointment shall have the right in law of consideration of
his claim and nothing more. As it would appear from the materials on
records, under the Government Circular dated 1st December 2015 which
was applicable at the time when the second application of the appellant
was considered a period of 5 years was provided for making an
application for compassionate appointment.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do
not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, it is
dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Tanuj/-
