IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1170 of 2011
--------
Somaru … … … … … … … Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited and others … … … Respondents
——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
——–
For the petitioner: Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha
For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Das
--------
Order No. 02: Dated 16th August, 2011
Per D.N.Patel, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for
getting compassionate appointment, because his father has
expired on 23rd December, 2003 while in service of the
respondents. The petitioner, being the son of the deceased
employee, applied within the stipulated time for getting
compassionate appointment and since the respondents have not
appointed the petitioner, the present writ petition has been
preferred in the year, 2011.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain
this writ petition, mainly for the following reasons:
(I) Father of the petitioner, who was serving with the
respondents, expired during course of employment on 23rd
December, 2003 and the petitioner, being son of the deceased
employee, has applied for compassionate appointment.
(ii) It appears that more than half a dozen years has lapsed
from the date of death of the father of the petitioner and, thus, the
very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated
by now.
(iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v.
Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC 412, especially at
paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6, has held as under:
“4. Seventeen years after the death of his father,
the respondent, on 8.1.1986, made an application for
being appointed to the post of a Primary School
Teacher under the said Rules. His application was
rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the
High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High
Court and an appeal from the decision of the Single
-2-
Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the
Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State
has filed the present appeal.5. The purpose of providing employment to a
dependant of a Government servant dying in harness
in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the
hardship caused to the family of the employee on
account of his unexpected death while still in service.
To alleviate the distress of the family, such
appointments are permissible on compassionate
grounds provided there are Rules providing for such
appointments. The purpose is to provide immediate
financial assistance to the family of a deceased
Government servant. None of these considerations
can operate when the application is made after a long
period of time such as seventeen years in the present
case.6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one
judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v.
Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for
appointment on similar compassionate grounds was
made twenty years after the railway servant’s death.
This Court observed:‘The reason for making compassionate
appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide
immediate financial assistance to the family of a
Government servant who dies in harness, when
there is no other earning member in the family.'”(Emphasis supplied)
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay
Kumar v. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC 192,
especially at paragraph nos. 2 and 3, has held as under:“2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the
decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High
3.
Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar. Learned
Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case
that an applicant’s right cannot be defeated on the
ground of delay caused by authorities which was
beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior
Counsel further points out that instead of following the
above judgment, the same learned Judge has now
held on 21.4.1997 that the application is time-barred.
Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of
this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v.
Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a
direction was given to create supernumerary posts.3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This
Court has held in a number of cases that
compassionate appointment is intended to enable the
-3-
family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden
crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner
had left the family in penury and without any means of
livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in
the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of
Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant
to notice that on the date when the first application
was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1998, the petitioner
was a minor and was not eligible for appointment.
This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be
reservation of a vacancy till such time as the
petitioner becomes a major after a number of years,
unless there are some specific provisions. The very
basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the
family gets immediate relief.”(Emphasis supplied)
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions and also looking to the fact
that more than half a dozen years has lapsed after the death of the
deceased employee, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition
for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Hence
there is no substance in this writ petition, which is, accordingly,
dismissed.
( D.N. Patel, J. )
Manoj/cp.2.