Chandan Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

By filing  this writ petition,  the  petitioner  has  prayed for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of his father - late Bhola Nath, who died in harness on 10.04.2017. He has further prayed for quashing the Letter No.168 dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition), whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents Authorities.

Learned  counsel  representing  the  petitioner  submits  that admittedly late Bhola Nath, who is the deceased father of this petitioner, had worked for 36 years and 7 months in the Commercial Taxes Department at Jamshedpur. He died in harness on 10.04.2017. Thereafter, this petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment but the same was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the services of father of the petitioner were not confirmed. He submits that the order of confirmation in this case is a mere formality as it cannot be lost sight of that the father of the petitioner admittedly worked for 36 years and 7 months in the Department. It is his contention that after the death of father of this petitioner, pension is being paid to the  mother of this petitioner. He submits that this fact has not been considered while rejecting the application of the petitioner.

Learned counsel representing the respondent – State submits that the appointment of father of the petitioner was irregular. A Committee  was  formed  to  consider  the  regularization  of  father  of this petitioner along with several other employees but the Committee did not recommend his regularization on the ground that the appointment was irregular as he was appointed by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), though the power was vested with the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. He also argues that the post against which the father of the petitioner was working, was  not  sanctioned.  He  lastly  submits  that  since  the  service  of  the father of the petitioner was not confirmed, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.

After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that late Bhola Nath, who is the deceased father of this petitioner, was  initially  appointed  as  a Stenographer  on  19.08.1980.  He  joined the office of the Commercial Taxes, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. Though the petitioner has stated that  the father  of the petitioner  was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post but the respondents in their counter affidavit disputed the said fact. The fact which is not disputed, rather specifically admitted is that the father of the petitioner joined on 19.08.1980 and died in harness on 10.04.2017. The fact which is clear is that father of petitioner had worked for long 36 years and 7 months and died in harness.

The fact that service of the father of the petitioner has not been confirmed, has been dealt with in the counter affidavit.

When I go through the counter affidavit, I find some glaring facts. The respondents in their counter affidavit at para-6(b) have  arrived  at  a conclusion  that  the  appointments  of  father  of  the petitioner along with others which were made in the year 1979-81 is irregular.

It is a fact that father of this petitioner, along with several others were appointed against Class-III and Class-IV posts in the undivided State of Bihar.

Further, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that a Committee was formed to consider regularization of father of the petitioner along with several others. It was found by the Committee that the Appointing Authority was the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, but the power of appointment was delegated to Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), and in terms of a letter, father of the petitioner was appointed. This fact was gathered by the Committee who was considering the confirmation of service of father of the petitioner.

Further, from the counter affidavit, I find that after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the service of father of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand in Cadre Division. This fact is also admitted by the  respondents  in  their counter  affidavit. In  the counter  affidavit,  it  has  been  mentioned  that  the  Committee  found that  father  of  the  petitioner  had  the  educational  qualification  to  be appointed on the said post but the post was not sanctioned. In absence of any document, the Committee was not clear as to whether the reservation Policy was followed or not. It is the stand of the State that the post was not sanctioned, though the educational qualification was there.

Even if for the sake of argument, I take that the post was not sanctioned but the fact which cannot be lost sight of is that father of the petitioner was allowed to work for 36 years and 7 months. He joined the post on 19.08.1980 and continued till he died on 10.04.2017. He was appointed as a Stenographer. The length of the period which he had worked, clearly suggests that the work was permanent and perennial in nature. Further, his appointment was made by virtue of delegation of power made by the Appointing Authority.  After  bifurcation  of  the  State  of  Bihar,  the  father  of  the petitioner was allocated the Jharkhand Cadre. Another glaring aspect in this case is that the respondents  have  sanctioned  and are paying pension to the widow of the deceased i.e. mother of this petitioner. It is also admitted that service book of father of the petitioner was also opened. All these clearly suggest that though no formal order of confirmation was passed yet his services were more or less perennial in nature and he was a permanent employee under the respondents. 12. In a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.242 of 2023 (Priya Mohanty Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein also non- confirmation  of  service  of  the  deceased  employee  was  a ground  for rejecting application for compassionate appointment, the Division Bench of this Court considering the length of service of the deceased employee, directed the respondents to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to that petitioner-appellant namely Priya Mohanty.

Thus, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be rejected only on the ground that the services of father of the petitioner was not confirmed.

Considering  the  aforesaid  facts  and  circumstances  of  this case, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned Rejection Order as contained in Letter No.168 dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Accordingly,  this  writ  petition  is  allowed. No  order  as  to costs.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.