IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 210 of 2010
Govind Ganjhu ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfield Limited & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: M/s M.M.Pal
For the Respondents: M/s Ananda Sen
-----
02/30.01.2010
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order
of the respondents, by which the petitioner’s claim for
compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father has
been rejected and further seeks reconsideration of his case for
compassionate appointment by the respondents.
As the facts transpire from the records, the petitioner’s
father was murdered while in service and on the very next day a
criminal case was registered in which the prosecution alleged that
the petitioner, along with other persons, had committed the murder
of his father. It was alleged by the prosecution that the mother of
the petitioner had died and his father had remarried and started
living with his second wife, separately from the petitioner. The
petitioner wanted the job of his father as also perhaps the property
and in that greed he committed the murder of his father.
The petitioner has been subsequently acquitted in the
criminal trial. A copy of that decision of the acquittal has been
produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From
that judgment it appears that the petitioner has been acquitted
because of hopeless investigation and prosecution, as also because
of witnesses turning hostile at the trial.
The father of the petitioner had died in the year 1995. The
impugned rejection order says that the petitioner applied for the
first time in the year 2006 for compassionate appointment. The
petitioner relies upon annexure 2, on the strength of which the
petitioner claims that he had applied for the job after three years in
the year 1998. Even if such an application had been made in the
year 1998, it was highly belated, and besides at that time the
petitioner was under trial in a murder case for the alleged murder
of his father. Obviously, that application had no meaning at that
time. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to help the
family of the deceased employee dying in harness to tide over the
immediate financial difficulties.
Considering the said purpose as well as the other
circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to exercise my
discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of
India in a case of this nature after so much of delay.
This writ petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
S.M.