Babli Kumari Aged About 17 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9197 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Babli Kumari Aged About 17 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2024

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    L.P.A. No. 326 of 2024
Babli Kumari aged about 17 years, D/o- late Nand Kumar Yadav, is minor
grand-daughter being represented through Rekha Kumari, aged about 44
years, D/o Late Upendra Yadav, R/o Near Ladies Hospital Gali, P.O. &
P.S.- Sultanganj, Dist- Bhagalpur, Bihar
                                              ..... Appellant/Petitioner
                                 Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General of Police having its office at Police Headquarters,
DPRD Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi,
Jharkhand- 834004
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana area having its
office at Dumka, P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, Dumka, Jharkhand
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget) having its office at
Police Headquarters, DPRD Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834004.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Dumka officiating from Dumka, Post
Dumka, Police Station- Dumka, District- Dumka
                                                    ..... Respondents
                                 ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mrityunjay Chaudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA

---------

th 05/ Dated: 12 September 2024 Per, Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code for substitution of legal heirs of the appellant writ petitioner.

2. It is stated in the interlocutory application that the representative of the appellant (minor) in the instant case has died on 15.06.2024, hence the daughter of the deceased representative of the minor appellant, namely, Rekha Kumari, aged about 44 years, D/o Late Upendra Yadav, R/o Near Ladies Hospital Gali, P.O. & P.S.- Sultanganj, Dist- Bhagalpur, Bihar who is the legal heir of the deceased representative of the minor appellant, as such, she may be substituted in place of deceased representative of the minor appellant in the instant case.

3. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Order 22 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application, is hereby allowed.

4. The name of Rekha Kumari, aged about 44 years, D/o Late Upendra Yadav, R/o Near Ladies Hospital Gali, P.O. & P.S.-Sultanganj, Dist-Bhagalpur, Bihar is hereby substituted in place of deceased representative of the minor appellant as such the minor appellant is being represented by the substituted representative.

5. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 9234 of 2024 stands allowed.

6. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd April 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2062 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the decision taken by the authority as contained in Memo No. 657, dated 18.02.2023, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka by which the claim of the minor petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, has been rejected.

7. The brief facts of the case as per pleadings made in the writ petitioner is required to be enumerated which reads as under:

The father of the appellant writ petitioner namely Late Nand Kumar Yadav (Police-731) was appointed on the post of Constable in Jharkhand Police and was posted at Dumka Police force. But he died in harness on 06.12.2010, leaving behind a minor daughter, namely, Babli Kumari, whose date of birth is 14.10.2006 without any alternate source of income as mother of the minor appellant writ petitioner has already died on 15.01.2009 i.e. prior to the death of father of the appellant writ petitioner.

The grandfather of the appellant writ petitioner, namely, Upendra Yadav was made an application on 27.06.2014 before the authorities requesting to be appointed her grand-daughter (appellant writ petitioner) as a Bal Arakshi. But at the time of submitting the application she was only 8 years and the minimum age of appointment to the post of female Bal Arakshi is fixed at 12 years, due to which further action was not taken by the respondent concerned.

Later on, vide memo no. 558 /R. O 25.02.2020 it was informed to the writ petitioner to submit necessary records for appointment to the said post. After submission of the necessary records to the authority concerned, the office of Superintendent of Police, Dumka, vide memo No. 2156/R.O dated 13.11.2020 a proposal was sent for appointment to the post of female child constable on compassionate ground along with the necessary records.

The Superintendent of Police, Dumka sent a letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter no. 37/R.O dated 05.01.2021 and letter no. 3262/R.O dated 24.09.22.

But, the matter was not decided for considerable period of time and finally by impugned communication dated 18.02.2023, vide memo no. 657 the candidature of the appellant writ petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected as because it was found that her father died on 06.12.2010 and the claim related to appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of the deceased is admissible till date 05.12.2015 within the limit of 5 years, and till the same period i.e. on 05.12.2015, the age of appellant writ petitioner was less than 12 years.

8. Being aggrieved the appellant writ petitioner through her Guardian, namely, Upendra Yadav had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2062 of 2023 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned writ Court vide order dated 03.04.2024 against which the present letters patent appeal has been preferred.

9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the father of the minor, Babli Kumari was working as Constable in Jharkhand Police who had died in harness on 06.12.2010.

10. The minor, namely, Babli Kumari was 4½ years of age at the time of death of her father. The minor on the basis of the communication issued by the competent authority has made an application for consideration of her case for having engagement as Bal Arakshi in pursuant to the policy decision dated 11th August 1988 as contained in memo no. 6568 which was issued under the authority of the Director

General and Inspector General of Bihar, Patna by way of a police order being Police order no. 209 of 1988.

11. The same policy decision speaks about the appointment of engagement of the dependant as Bal Arakshi, to be engaged, if the candidate/ dependant is aged between 12-18 years. The said scheme does not contain any limitation period for filing such an application, as only consideration is to be given to one or the other candidates, the minor/dependent to be between the age of 12 to 18 years.

12. The minor, appellant, has filed an application on 27.06.2014 for consideration of her case for appointment as Bal Arakshi in pursuant to the Police order no. 209 of 1988.

13. The said application was entertained by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka. The said application had been kept pending waiting for the minor to attain the age of 12 years and to that effect a communication was made to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand Ranchi which was also communicated to the petitioner i.e. evident from the document having issued under the signature of the of Superintendent of Police, Dumka.

14. The S.P, Dumka after keeping the said petition pending for a period of about 9 years has rejected the claim vide memo no.657, dated 18.02.2023.

15. Being aggrieved from the order of rejection, the minor appellant through her guardian, i.e. Grandfather filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2062 of 2023 wherein learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the prayer of the writ petitioner (appellant herein).

16. The minor, appellant, has approached this Court under the guardianship of her grandfather, namely, Upendra Yadav but since he has died in course of pendency of the instant appeal and as such by virtue of the order passed in interlocutory application being I.A. No. 9234 of 2024 the Aunt (Bua) has been substituted the grandfather (representative of the minor), since the mother of minor is no more.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

17. Mr. Mrityunjay Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fundamental issue regarding the very object and intent of policy decision as contained in police order no. 209 of 1988. The said police order only speaks about the consideration of candidature of the minor, if found to be in between the age of 12-18 years. The application was filed on behalf of the minor for consideration of her case but the S.P, Dumka has kept the same pending which was filed in the year 2014 and after lapse of 9 years the aforesaid application has been quashed on the ground that the minor was only aged about 4½ years at the time of demise of her father.

18. In the aforesaid backdrop the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that for the purposes of appointment as Bal Arakshi, the minimum age is 12 years and therefore upon attaining 12 years of age, the petitioner should have been granted the compassionate appointment

19. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has travelled on the premise of regular concept of providing appointment on compassionate ground. As such, the submission has been made that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be considered based upon the policy decision and there cannot be general application, if the policy decision is different but the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned writ Court therefore, the impugned order suffer from an error and as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Submission of learned counsel for the respondents:

20. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned AC to AAG-IA while defending the impugned order has submitted that at the time of death of her father the appellant since minor aged about 4½ years and as such, there cannot be any consideration for appointment of the minor under the police establishment and if that fact has taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis

21. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleadings as also the finding recorded by the learned Single

Judge in the impugned order.

22. This Court on appreciation of the rival submissions and the factual aspects as available in the pleadings is of the view that as per the settled position of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not legal vested right, the same cannot be disputed. Further, the appointment on compassionate ground is exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also settled position of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is required to be considered on the basis of the scheme applicable in one or the other establishment, the said view is settled which is evident from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are being referred herein.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the very object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein it has been held at paragraphs 4 and 6 as under:

" 4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662 : (1989) 11 ATC 878 : (1989) 4 SLR 327] has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV. In the present case, the High Court has rightly pointed out that the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compassionate employment in Class II posts. However, it appears from the judgment that the State Government had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. etc. Such exception, as pointed out above, is illegal, since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family.

Neither the qualifications of his dependant nor the post which he held is relevant. It is for this reason that we are unable to understand the following observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment: "We are of the view that the extraordinary situations require extraordinary remedies and it is open to the Government in real hard cases to deviate from the letter and spirit of the instructions and to provide relief in cases where it is so warranted. To hold as a matter of law that the Government cannot deviate even minutely from the policy of providing appointment only against Class III and Class IV posts, would be to ignore the reality of life these days. It would be ridiculous to expect that a dependant of a deceased Class I Officer, should be offered appointment against a Class III or IV post. While we leave it to the Government to exercise its discretion judiciously in making appointments to Class I or II posts on compassionate grounds, yet a word of caution needs to be struck. It is to be noted that such appointments should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases, and in very exceptional circumstances. As a matter of fact, we would recommend that the Government should frame a policy even for such appointments."

6. For these very reasons, 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."

24. Further it is also settled proposition of law that appointment on compassionate ground is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For ready reference the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others v. K.R. Vishwanath [(2005) 7 SCC 206], at paragraph 9 is quoted as under:

"9. As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [(1996) 5 SCC 308] , it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on

the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of 5 the Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and

16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in harness scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi case [(1996) 5 SCC 308] it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718] it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138] that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased."

25. In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to

the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

26. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

27. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid settled position is now considering that the claim of the minor is based upon which scheme. Whether the regular scheme of the State of Jharkhand which was notified on 5th October 1991 or the Rule which has come in supersession to be the 1991 rule as of the rule 2015.

28. Here the fact about the applicability of the Police order no. 209/88 is also require to be taken into consideration which has been notified under the authority of the Inspector General and the Director General of

Police, the competent authority under the Police manual for consideration in case of appointment of such minor whose bread earner has died and the consideration for appointment even of minor is the basic objective, which is evident from the very reference of Paragraph No.1 of the said policy decision wherein it has been stated that two posts is to be kept reserved for the purpose of fulfilling the same from "Bal Aarkshi" if he/she attained the age of 12-18 years.

29. For ready reference, the said scheme although in Hindi but the reference of the same is required to be made for proper appreciation of the factual aspect which reads as under:

iqfyl vkns'k la0 209@88 fo"k;%&izR;sd ftyk esa vkjf{k;ksa ds Lohd`r cy esa ls 2&2 in eqBHksM+ vFkok dÙkZO; esa e`r vkj{kh cy ds lnL;ksa ds ukckyhx cPpksa ds fy, lqjf{kr j[kus ds lEcU/k esaA &&&&&&& 1 ljdkj dh lgefr ls izR;sd ftyk esa Lohd`r vkj{kh cy ds nks&nks in lqjf{kr j[kus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA bu inksa ij fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k ,oa 'krZ fuEufyf[kr gksxh%& ¼1½ bu inksa ij 12&18 o"kZ ds cPpksa dh fuEu Js.khokj fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA ¼2½ mu vkj{khdfeZ;ksa ds cPpksa dh fu;qfDr] ftuds firk@ekrk fuEufyf[kr nkf;Ro ;k dÙkZO;&ijk;.krk esa viuk thou vfiZr fd, gSa] dh tk;sxh%& 1- eqBHksM+ esa 2 vijkf/k;ksa dks fxj¶rkj djus ds Øe esa 3 vuqla/kku ds Øe esa 4 ljdkjh dk;Z gsrq xUrO; LFkku ij tkus ds Øe esa 5 lsokdky esa LokHkkfod e`R;q gks tkus ds QyLo:i 2- mijksDr Js.kh esa Øeokj izFke Js.kh] f}rh; Js.kh] r`rh; Js.kh] prqFkZ Js.kh ,oa 5 yxkrkj Js.kh rd fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA ,d gh Js.kh ds dbZ cPpksa ds vkosnuksa wesa ftldk vkosnu igys izkIr gqvk gks mlh dks igyk volj fn;k tk;sxkA tks Hkh vkosnu izkIr gksx a s] frfFkokj j[ks tk;sx a s rFkk izkfIr dh frfFk dk vadu ,oa gLrk{kj jktif=r inkf/kdkjh }kjk dj ,oa jftLVj esa fjdkWMZ gksxk vkSj vkosnu jftLVj ds lkFk ^ch QkbZy* esa j[kk tk,xkA 3- fu;qDr cPpksa dks vkj{kh ds orZeku fu/kkZfjr U;wure osru dk vk/kk ns; gksxkA dksbZ okf"kZd c<+ksRrjh ns; ugha gksxhA 4- cPpksa ds i<+us dh leqfpr O;oLFkk ,oa vPNs Ldwy esa ukekadu dh O;oLFkk vkj{kh v/kh{kd djsx a s rFkk mlds i<+kbZ dh izxfr dh leh{kk izR;sd ekg vkj{kh v/kh{kd Lo;a djsaxsA osru ds iSls ls gh iqLrd bR;kfn ij [kpZ fd;k tk,xkA 5- -------------------

6 -----------------

7 -----------------

8 -----------------

9 -----------------

10 -----------------

gLrk{kj t0 Hkks0 dqj's kh egkfuns'kd ,oa vkj{kh egkfujh{kd] fcgkj]iVukA Kkikad 6568@ih2 egkfuns'kd ,oa vkj{kh egkfujh{kd dk;kZy;] fcgkj] iVukA iVuk] fnukad 11 vxLr] 1988A

30. It is evident from the aforesaid policy decision that there is no period of limitation to file application rather only requirement as referred herein above the age of the minor for engagement is to be between the

age of 12-18 years.

31. The period of limitation in filing application not applicable even has been admitted by the S.P, Dumka himself which would be evident from the communication dated 16.07.2014 addressed to the DIG, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka. Background of reference of the said communication was that the minor had made an application on 27.06.2014 making request for her appointment as "Bal Arakshi" but the S.P, Dumka has kept the said matter pending on the pretext that appointment which is to be made only if she attained the age of 12 years.

32. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was communicated to the DIG (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi. But the S.P., Dumka, after lapse of about 9 years has come out with the order impugned Memo No. 657, Letter dated 18.02.2023 rejected the claim of the minor.

33. The ground has been taken in the impugned order that at the time of death of her father the minor appellant was aged about 4½ years.

34. Further it needs to refer herein that the police manual is very specific regarding competency to make appointment and to take disciplinary action against the police personnel. Further the power to take disciplinary action has been vested upon the Superintendent of Police or the Officer at the rank of S.P. The power to look as an appellate authority has been vested upon the DIG of Police, the revision before the IG/DG of the Police.

35. The law is well settled that the appointing authority only can take disciplinary action and non-other and even Police manual is very specific that the D.I.G is the appellate authority and once the D.I.G has been made appellate authority in the police manual, the officer at the rank of D.I.G cannot be said to the original appointing authority, otherwise the decision will be taken by the D.I.G of Police, then one forum of appeal.

36. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case it is evident that the S.P., Dumka has referred the matter by making reference of the facts that the minor since has not attained the age of 12 years and as such, the application is required to be kept pending, therefore, this Court is of the view that the content of the communication vide memo no. 657, letter

dated 18.02.2023 is also needs to be referred herein:

ज्ञापाां क 657/र०का०

पु लिस अधीक्षक का कार्ाा िर्, दु मका।

दु मका, लदनाां क 18/02/2023 सेवा में, सुश्री बबिी कुमारी, पुत्री-आरक्षी-731 स्व० नन्द कुमार र्ादव, ग्राम-छोटी कोररर्न, पो०-मासुमगांज, लपन कोड-813213 थाना-असरगांज, लजिा - मुांगेर (लबहार)

प्रसांग- पुलिस उप-महालनरीक्षक (बजट), झारखण्ड रााँ ची के कार्ाा िर् का ज्ञापाां क-86/डब्ल्यू लदनाां क-

12.01.2023

लवषर् :- दु मका लजिाबि के आरक्षी-731 स्व० श्री नन्द कुमार र्ादव की आलश्रत पु त्री बबिी कुमारी को अनु कम्पा के आधार पर बाि आरक्षी के पद पर लनर्ुक्ति के सां बांध में।

***** उपर्ुाि लवषर् के सां दर्ा में सू लचत करना है लक आपके स्व० लपता श्री नन्द कुमार र्ादव, लजनकी मृत्यु लदनाां क-06.12.2010 को हो गर्ी थी, के स्थान पर अनु कम्पा के आधार पर बाि आरक्षी के पद आपकी लनर्ुक्ति हे तु प्रस्ताव इस कार्ाा िर् के ज्ञापाां क-2156/र०का० लदनाां क-13.11.2020 के द्वारा पु लिस उप- महालनरीक्षक (बजट), झारखण्ड रााँ ची को र्े जा गर्ा। उि प्रे लषत प्रस्ताव के आिोक में पु लिस उप- महालनरीक्षक (बजट), शारखण्ड रााँ ची के प्रसाां लगक ज्ञापाां क के माध्यम से सू लचत लकर्ा गर्ा है लक लदनाां क- 14.12.2022 को सम्पन्न पु लिस मुख्यािर् स्तरीर् अनु कम्पा सलमलत की बैठक में समीक्षा के क्रम में पार्ा गर्ा लक आपके लपता की मृत्यु लदनाां क 06.12.2010 की हुई है । मृतक के आलश्रत को अनु कम्पा के आधार पर लनर्ुक्ति से सांबांलधत दावा लदनाां क-05.12.2015 तक अनु मान्य परन्तु उि अवलध (05.12.2015) तक मृतक के आलश्रत पुत्री बबिी कुमारी की आर्ु (जन्नलतलथ-14.10 2006) के अनु सार 12 वषा से कम है । इस प्रकार अनु कम्पा सलमलत की बैठक (14.12.2022) में लिर्े गर् लनर्ा र् के अनु सार आपको अनु कम्पा के आधार पर बाि आरक्षी के पद पर लनर्ुक्ति हे तु 05 वषा की समर् सीमा के र्ीतर अल्प आर्ु (12 वषा से कम) रहने के कारर् अर्ोग्र् लकर्ा गर्ा है ।

अतएव उपरोि पररपेक्ष्य में आपकोां सू लचत लकर्ा जाता है लक रलक्षत कार्ाा िर् पु लिस केन् दु मका से सम्र्पक स्थालपत कर स्वां र् द्वारा पू वा में समलपा त सर्ी मूि प्रमार् पत्र एवां अन्य अलर्िेख प्रा कर िें।

Sd/-

पु लिस अधीक्षक, दु मका।

प्रलतलिलपिः- 1. पुलिस उप-महलनरीक्षक (बजट), झारखण्ड रााँ ची को कृपर्ा सादर सू चनाथा ।

2. पुलिस उप-महालनरीक्षक, सां थाि परगना क्षे त्र दु मका को कृपर्ा सादर सू चनाथा ।

Sd/-

पु लिस अधीक्षक, दु मका।

37. At this juncture the object of the scheme to make appointment on compassionate ground is required to be considered. The said policy decision has already been referred herein above and from its perusal it is evident that with the consent of the Government, two posts in the district police is to be kept reserved which is to be filled up from amongst the "Bal Arakshi" who is to be appointed if found to be in between age of 12 to 18 years.

38. The further object which is evident said to be benevolent in nature

if the other paragraph will be taken into consideration particularly paragraph 4 in order not to create a rider after sudden demise of bread earner. The policy since not act as a rider due to sudden demise of the bread earner and as such, it cannot be disputed and no one can dispute the underline object of the said policy decision, to provide means of sustenance both for survival and continue in the education.

39. The moment said object for sustenance and furtherance of education then it cannot be said to be proper that the age is to be taken into consideration on the date of demise of the bread earner otherwise there was no purpose of inserting paragraph no.1 by making reference of age of between 12 to 18 years and further the proper arrangement for furtherance/continuation of study of such minor due to sudden demise of bread earner.

The same is evident even from a communication dated 24.09.2022 which has been communicated to the petitioner by keeping the application pending that she can only be appointed in case if she will attain the age of 12 years.

40. This Court based upon the aforesaid discussion is of the view that the DIG of Police, (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi while rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that she was only aged about 4½ years and as such she was not eligible to be engaged as "Bal Arakshi" cannot be said to be in consonance of the said policy decision.

41. The learned Single Judge has agreed to the decision so taken which we have found from paragraph 11 which is the conclusion based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of West Bengal versus Debabrata Tiwari and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175.

42. There is no dispute regarding the underlying object of compassionate appointment as has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case but if the consideration of the policy decision as contained in police order no. 209 of 1988 will be seen the very object of it then there is difference between the regular scheme for appointment on compassionate ground for at least two reasons, i.e.,

(i) that there is no full salary based upon the pay scale rather the minimum of the pay scale is to be granted and further in order for smooth and continuous study, such engagement is necessary; meaning thereby, that is not only the question of sustenance to save the life of the dependent of the deceased but also the minor be able to get uninterrupted education from the said Government aid.

(ii) that the arrangement has been made in the said policy decision on the basis of the option if expressed by one or the other Bal Arakshi to be engaged as Constable.

43. This Court therefore is of the view that the learned Single Judge has gone into the general principle of appointment on compassionate ground based upon the policy decision which was subject matter of the said case. But we are dealing with the different policy decision and said policy decision has not been said to be in dispute rather it would be evident from letter dated 24.09.2022 the same is still been followed by the State of Jharkhand, since the signatory of the communication dated 24.09.2022 is S.P, Dumka and also the claim has been rejected by functionary of State of Jharkhand Officer at the rank of DIG of Police (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Conclusion

44. This Court in view of the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge needs to be interfered. Accordingly, the same is hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.

45. In consequence thereof, the instant petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 3rd April 2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2062 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.

46. It has been informed that the maximum barrier for engagement is age of 18 years it is only one month still is in completion of the age of 18 years and as such, this Court is of the view that if the appropriate direction will not be issued upon the concerned respondent to take decision regarding the engagement of the petitioner within a period of shortage possibility, then she will become ineligible in view of the said

policy decision.

47. Here the issue has also been taken into consideration as minor is alone since the mother and father both have died and as such, implementation of the said policy decision as made herein above is required to allow the minor to save her future life both as a human being and by carrying out her studies.

48. Accordingly, concerned Respondent No.5 is directed to take follow up action by issuance of engagement order in view of the policy decision within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

49. The instant letters patent appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

50. Pending I.As., if any, are hereby disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

/ A.F.R. Pramanik