Patna High Court
Sushma Kumari @ Sushma Gupta vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 August, 2024
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1956 of 2015
======================================================
Sushma Kumari @ Sushma Gupta W/o Late Prakash Kumar Gupta, R/o
Village - Gangachak Bazar, P.O. - Gangachak, P.S. - Masaurhi, District -
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
2. The Secretary, Department of SC and ST Welfare, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Department of SC and ST Welfare, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee through the District
Magistrate, Vaishali.
5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur.
6. The District Welfare Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur.
7. Divya Prakash D/o late Prakash Kumar Gupta, C/o Smt. Rita Gupta, in the
House of Sri K.D. Prasad, Road No. 3, Hawai Nagar, Birsa Chowk, Ranchi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Brijnandan, Advocate
Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate
Mr. (Dr.) Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nadeem Seraj, GP 20
Ms. Shalini Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-08-2024
Heard Mr. Kumar Brijnandan, along with Mr. Amit
Pandey and (Dr.) Pratyush Kumar, learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Nadeem Seraj, learned GP
20 along with Ms. Shalini Mishra, for the State.
2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs
in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-
(I) For issuance of an order(s)/direction(s) or
Patna High Court CWJC No.1956 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
2/7
writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Memo
No.4250 dated 15.11.2014 issued by the Respondent
No.5- the District Magistrate, Vaishali whereby and
whereunder the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee headed by District Magistrate, Vaishali
rejected the application dated 23.06.2012 of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment. And/ or
(ii) For issuance of an order(s)/direction(s)
or writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable
government post on the compassionate ground. And / or
(iii) Pass such other order/orders which may
appear fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the instant case."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that District Compassionate Appointment
Committee headed by District Magistrate in its meeting dated
08.11.2014
has rejected the claim of the petitioner for being
appointed on compassionate ground mainly on the ground that
there are more than one claimant and statement in the said
regard has been made in paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondents no.4 to 6. It is the case of the
petitioner that there is no dispute that she is the second wife
after the deceased employee had divorced his first wife and so
far as the claim of the daughter of the deceased employee from
first wife is concerned, as per the guidelines of the
compassionate appointment, which has been brought on record
Patna High Court CWJC No.1956 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
by way of Annexure 3, the wife is entitled as a first claimant and
not the daughter, namely, Divya Prakash, respondent no.7
herein, who is daughter of the deceased employee from the first
wife. Learned counsel submitted that this aspect of the matter
has not been taken into consideration by the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee, which has resulted
into non-consideration of application of independent mind and
thereafter a decision has been taken by the District Magistrate,
who has rejected the claim of the petitioner for consideration of
her case of appointment on compassionate ground after the
death of the deceased employee in harness on 17.03.2012 in
spite of the fact that vide order dated 10.01.2014 passed in
CWJC No.18543 of 2012, this Court had directed to take
conscious decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner.
Petitioner has also filed CWJC No.13483 of 2012. Learned
counsel further submitted that the decision of the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee is required to be
interfered on the ground that there is no reference of the service
book of the deceased employee in respect of the entitlement for
claiming family pension and as such the Committee has failed to
consider the very fact that the petitioner has been appointed as a
nominee by the deceased employee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1956 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that the matters involving the appointment
on compassionate ground in respect of all the claimants were
discussed by the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee and it was found that after the death of husband of
the petitioner, appointment on compassionate ground was
claimed by more than one applicant and there was no consensus
among them on the point of appointment and, as such, none of
them could be appointed.
5. Heard the parties.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that the petitioner has
claimed herself to be the legally second wife of the deceased
employee, who had taken divorce from his first wife, namely,
Rita Gupta, during his service period. On perusal of the
decision of the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee, I find that there is no discussion in respect of the
fact, as to whether, during the lifetime of the deceased employee
before marrying with the petitioner, he has taken permission
from the department. It is admitted by the parties that deceased
employee had taken divorce from his first wife, namely, Rita
Gupta and then married the petitioner, who is claiming to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.1956 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
appointed on compassionate ground and she is also receiving
family pension. I find that in absence of clear finding in this
regard and merely on the ground that appointment on
compassionate ground was claimed by more than one claimant
and there was no consensus among them on the point of
appointment and as such, none of them could be appointed
cannot be a good ground of rejection of the case of the
petitioner. I am of the opinion that the matter with respect to the
petitioner and other claimant is required to be reconsidered by
the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in
accordance with the resolution of the compassionate
appointment, as contained in Memo No.13293 dated 05.10.1991
(Annexure 3), as well as, the service book of the deceased
employee and also the Committee is required to verify, as to
whether, the deceased employee has taken any permission
before marrying with the petitioner, who is the second wife of
the deceased employee.
7. It is well settled that the very purpose of
compassionate appointment is to mitigate the immediate
financial hardship of the family and the law relating to
consideration for being appointed on compassionate ground is
no more res intergra. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh
Patna High Court CWJC No.1956 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC
138] and in the case of The State Of West Bengal Vs.
Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc. passed in Civil Appeal nos.
8842-8855 of 2022, after relying on the ratio of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (Supra), the Apex Court in para 7.2 has inter alia held
as follows:
7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment
makes a departure from the general provisions
providing for appointment to a post by following a
particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a
provision enables appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an
exception to the general provisions and must be
resorted to only in order to achieve the stated
objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to
get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a
source of recruitment. The reason for making such a
benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector
undertaking is to see that the dependants of the
deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It
only enables the family of the deceased to get over the
sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future.
Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or
offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is
improper to keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial
crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind
including the income of the family, its liabilities, the
terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age,
dependency and marital status of its members, together
with the income from any other source.
8. In a very peculiar facts of the present case, I find it
proper to direct the concerned authority to first reconsider the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1956 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
financial condition of the family of the deceased employee as on
date and if it is found that petitioner is in financial crisis in
spite of the fact that she is receiving pension and only after
giving a specific finding in this regard, the District Magistrate
is required to take steps for referring the matter of the petitioner
or any other claimant in respect of their claim for being
appointed on compassionate ground before the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee, so that the claim of
the petitioner vis-a-vis the other claimant (heirs) of the
deceased employee can be considered.
9. The decision of the District Magistrate, Vaishali as
contained in Memo No.4250 dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure 12) is
hereby set aside and quashed.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
11. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.08.2024
Transmission Date NA
