Jharkhand High Court
Mukendar Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 13 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 961 of 2024
Mukendar Kumar Paswan, aged about 31 years son of Late Bhikhari
Paswan, Resident of Village- Balhara, P.O. Taranakho, P.S. Dhanwar,
District-Giridih. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change, having office
at Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Town and District-
Ranchi.
2. Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation
Limited having office at 455/a Road Number 5, Ashok Nagar, P.O.-
Doranda, P.S. Argora Town & District-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, having office at Hazaribagh, P.O.
& P.S.-Hazaribagh. ...Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranesh Anand, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-1
For the Respondent- JSFDCL : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
---
05/Dated:13.09.2024
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
respondent State and the respondent-Jharkhand State Forest Development
Corporation Limited.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
praying therein for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 2146
dated 21.11.2023 and also letter as contained in memo no. 1743 dated
23.11.2023, whereby the petitioner has been informed that there is no
provision for compassionate appointment after amendment in 12.02.2021
and accordingly, the petitioner cannot be given compassionate
appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground which
has been taken by the respondent authorities for denying compassionate
appointment to this petitioner is that by virtue of notification of the State
Government dated 12.02.2021, the petitioner is not entitled for
compassionate appointment. But, the fact remains that the petitioner's
father, who was an ex-employee of the respondent organization, died on
23.04.2019 whereas the notification which is mentioned in the impugned
order is subsequent to his death and at the time of his death the
notification which was prevalent was of dated 01.12.2015. Accordingly,
the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment as per the
notification dated 01.12.2015.
4. Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand
State Forest Development Corporation Limited, contended that the
compassionate appointment is not a vested right and it has to be acted on
the basis of rules and regulations and the financial condition of the family
of the deceased employee should also to be taken into consideration and
since, the family of the deceased employee received a handsome amount
of more than Rs.35 lakhs, thus there was no occasion for any financial
crisis. The very objective of compassionate appointment is to tide over
the financial crisis arising out of the death of the employee.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on record, some admitted facts are as
follows:
i. The father of the petitioner, who was an ex-employee of the
respondent-Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation
Limited, was died on 23.04.2019.
ii. A notification dated 12.02.2021 came whereby the
provisions for giving compassionate appointment for the
Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited was
deleted.
iii. However, prior to 12.02.2021, a notification was in
existence, which contains the provision of compassionate
appointment in the respondent Jharkhand State Forest
Development Corporation Limited.
iv. In catena of judgments, it has been now well settled that
compassionate appointment is to be governed as per the rules and
regulations of the company/organization.
6. Looking to the factual scenario, there is no hesitation in holding
that since the father of the petitioner died on 23.04.2019, and at that time
the notification dated 01.12.2015 was in vogue and the same was deleted
only in the year 12.02.2021 thereby the provisions of compassionate
appointment was deleted, the subsequent notification will not come in the
way of appointing this petitioner on compassionate ground in as much as,
the law is well settled that a case of any person will be guided by the
prevalent rules and regulations at the time of cause of action. And since
in the instant case the father of the petitioner died in the year 2019 and as
such the notification dated 01.12.2015 will be applicable in the case of
the petitioner and there will be no effect from the subsequent notification
dated 12.02.2021. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
7. The respondents are directed to issue formal letter of appointment
to this petitioner within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
MM
