In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(S) No.661 of 2007
Nutan Lakra........................... Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India and others.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner :Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
For the State : M/s. M.S.Akhtar and A.K.Mehta
Reserved on 28.1.2009 Pronounced on 4.2.2009
8. 4.2.09
It is the case of the petitioner that her husband Jayant Lakra
while was posted as a Constable in 112 Battalion of Border Security
Force, in the Indo-Bangladesh Border Area of Dhubin (Assam), died
of malaria on 25.3.2000. Thereupon the petitioner having a minor
child started facing acute financial problem and, therefore, the
petitioner did apply before the authority of the Border Security
Force for giving appointment on compassionate ground. On such
request being made by the petitioner, the authority of the Border
Security Force forwarded the application of the petitioner before
the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand for doing needful in
the matter of compassionate appointment in terms of resolution as
contained in memo no.5(48) 09/2003, Ranchi dated 15.6. 2004
(Annexure 3), wherein the policy decision has been taken for giving
employment to the widow/dependents of the members of the
armed forces like Border Security Force etc. who laid their lives for
service of the nation and intimation to that effect was given to the
petitioner but when no order in this regard was passed, the
petitioner made representation before the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, respondent no.2 but that also did not
move the authority and therefore, this writ application was filed
with a prayer to direct the respondent to give suitable employment
2
to the petitioner on compassionate ground in terms of the
resolution dated 15.6.2004 (Annexure 3).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
Government of Jharkhand under resolution as contained in memo
no. 5(48) 09/2003, Ranchi dated 15.6. 2004 (Annexure 3) has
taken a decision to give employment to the widow/dependents of
the personnel of para-military forces, who laid down their lives
while performing duties on the border or in combating terrorist
activities and when the husband of the petitioner died, while he
was posted as a constable of Border Security Force, the authority
of Border Security Force made recommendation for giving
appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner as she was
fulfilling all the criterias entitling her to be appointed in terms of the
said resolution of the Government, but the respondent has not
taken any decision in this respect.
However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.3 wherein it has been stated that as the husband of
the petitioner died of malaria on 25.3.2000, the petitioner is not
entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground as the decision
taken under aforesaid resolution is to be given effect to from
15.11.2000.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
since the decision under resolution (Annexure 3) has been taken
for meeting the hardship being faced by the family by reason of the
death of the bread earner, the provision of it may not be strictly
adhered to rather it needs to be construed liberally and hence, the
date, i.e, 15.11.2000 from when that resolution was made effective
should also include the period during which application for
compassionate appointment was pending and, therefore, the
3
authority be directed to take decision in the matter of appointment
of the petitioner.
Admittedly, Government of Jharkhand has taken a policy
decision under resolution as contained in Annexure 3 whereby
widow/ dependents of the members of the armed forces, who have
laid their lives for the nation while performing duties on the border
or in combating terrorist activities, is to be given appointment on
compassionate ground on fulfilling the other criteria and the said
decision is to be given effect to from 15.11.2000 whereas the
husband of the petitioner died on 25.3.2000 before such decision
was taken by the Sate of Jharkhand and as such, the petitioner will
have no right to claim appointment on compassionate ground as it
has been well settled that respondent is required to consider the
request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the
scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of
the authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the
scheme. The claim of compassionate appointment and the right, if
any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules,
etc framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment
on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature
to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the
one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or
instructions as the case may be.
The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs.
Somvir Singh [(2007) 4 SCC 778] .
In view of he settled law, the petitioner is not entitled to
relief as claimed. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
(R. R. Prasad, J.)
ND/