Amit Lohra vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard on merit.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the decision dated 10.02.2016 of the District Compassionate Committee, Singhbhum

West, Chaibasa, contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition.

The father of the petitioner was employed as a Peon (Anusevak) in First Class Veterinary Dispensary, Jagarnathpur (Ranchi). The father of the

petitioner died in harness on 14.07.2008. The death certificate is annexed as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The petitioner was a non-matriculate at

the time of death of his father. There was no earning member in the family. The petitioner was the only member to meet out the expenses of the

family. The petitioner applied for the appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2008 itself. However, the case of the petitioner was kept

pending for years together and finally by the impugned order dated 10.02.2016, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected

on the ground that the petitioner is not a matriculate and the educational certificate issued to the petitioner is not from a recognized school as per the

resolution dated 02.09.2011.

Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the circular relied by the respondents has come

into effect on 02.09.2011, whereby, matriculation was required for appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that the circular was

made effective w.e.f. the year 2011, whereas, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2008 and the application was filed for compassionate

appointment in the same year and that is why 2011 circular has got no retrospectivity effect.

Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits as the petitioner was not matriculate, the claim of the petitioner has been

rightly rejected by the respondents as per the resolution dated 02.09.2011.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into the materials on the record, it transpires that the father of the petitioner died in the

year 2008. An application was also made in the year 2008 for appointment on the compassionate ground by the petitioner. However, no decision was

taken on such application and finally on 10.02.2016, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was studying in a school,

which was not recognized and the petitioner was not matriculate. In view of the resolution dated 02.09.2011, matriculation is necessary and that is

why the case of the petitioner has been rejected. The Court finds that the application was made by the petitioner in the year 2008. However, the same

was considered in the year 2016 after almost eight years of submission of such application. The circular has come into effect on 02.09.2011. There is

no mention in the said resolution that it will be operative retrospectively. It is well settled position that at the time of death of the father of the

petitioner, earlier scheme was made applicable. The matriculation certificate was made essential w.e.f. the year 2011 and prior to that matriculation

was not necessary. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered in light of the earlier scheme which was prevalent in the year 2008. A

reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank v. Promila, reported in

(2020) 2 SCC 729. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being provided at the stage of

unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment. If these factors are kept in mind, it

would be noticed that the respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation which

they were faced with. Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant

Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in

Canara Bank. It is not for the courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently

emphasised by this Court in State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand.

There is no doubt that proposition of law is very clear that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a matter of right, but in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, as the application of the petitioner was kept pending for years together and only in the year 2016, the same was

rejected, which requires to be considered by the District Compassionate Committee, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa as per previous scheme. Accordingly,

the impugned order dated 10.02.2016, contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition is quashed, so far as the petitioner is concerned. The matter is

remitted back to the District Compassionate Committee, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa for considering the case of the petitioner afresh in light of the

discussions made herein above and for passing an appropriate reasoned order, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of

a copy of this order.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.