Dharmendra Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Others

R.S. Garg, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is before this Court with a prayer that the Memo No. 783 dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure-1) whereunder his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner.

The petitioner has submitted that he made the application for appointment on compassionate ground submitting that his father died on 24.4.1996 in harness while he was in services, therefore, he is entitled to the appointment. It is also submitted in the writ application that the petitioner''s mother was also a Government employee but she predeceased petitioner''s father as she died on 24.4.1988. In Annexure-1 it is submitted that if much before the death of the second spouse the first one had died then the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected. The respondents have relied upon certain letters which were issued from time to time. They are relying upon Annexure-A, letter dated 6.4.1998 issued by the Director, Medical Services and yet another letter dated 19.5.1998 issued from the Office of the Incharge, Employees State Insurance Corporation. According to them in accordance with the Circular No. 13293 dt. 5.10.1991, of Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, if one spouse out of the two has retired and the other one dies during services then the dependent of such person would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.

The respondents are placing strong reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Courtin the matter of Ashok Kumar Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, . It is submitted by the respondents that from paragraph 11 onwards of the judgment, it would appear that the High Court was of the opinion that if one of the spouse is retired and the other dies while in service then the dependent would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the original circular dated 5.10.1991 bearing No. 13293 submits that in Annexure-A so also in Annexure-B a fraud is sought to be played. He submits that the said circular does not say anything about the retirement of one of the spouse but the circular simply says that if both the parents are in services and one dies in harness then the dependent would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.

I have heard the parties at length.

After going through the circular No. 13293 dt. 5.10.1991 I must immediately say that the director so also the Incharge, Employees State Insurance Corporation have played fraud upon the petitioner and are still trying to perpetuate the said fraud. The said circular has nothing to do with the retirement of one of the spouse, who was working in the Government service. The circular simply says that if the husband and the wife both are in Government service and one of them dies then in such circumstances on strength/basis of compassion the benefit of appointment would not be given to the dependent of such deceased.

The said clause does not even remotely refer to the retirement of one of the employees and death of the other while in services. I am sorry to record but I must record that the State and its Officers are obliged to be straight and honest and they cannot create grounds just to defeat the logical and legitimate claims of the citizens of the country.

The judgment in the matter of Ashok Kumar Choudhary (supra), if is read in its true perspective then it would clearly appear that the said Clause 1 (Anga) of 1991 Circular was under consideration. The High Court was of the opinion that if both the husband and the wife are in services and one of them dies, in that situation the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground will not be available to the dependent of the family. The High Court was also of the opinion that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a regular appointment but is to provide bread or some succour to the family which suffered the loss, who are bereaved because of the loss of the bread-winner and at the same time loss of the bread also. In a case where both the parents are the Government employees, one of them is retired and is drawing pension and the other dies while in service then the family is getting some succour in form of the pension, therefore, the Division Bench in the matter of Ashok Kumar Choudhary (supra) observed that the dependent of such Government employees cannot be appointed on compassionate ground because the source of livelihood is available to the family in the shape of pension and other retiral benefits. In the present case, the mother of the petitioner died in the year 1988 and therefore there is no question of somebody getting the pension on 24.4.1996 when the father of the petitioner dies. On death of the father so also on the death of the mother, the family is left with no income. They may only get the family pension or some other small benefits which may not be sufficient to meet both the ends.

Taking into consideration the impact and effect of the said Circular, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court-and the stand of the State Govt., I am of the considered opinion that rejection of the petitioner''s application is per se illegal and is based on the grounds which are non-est either on facts or in the law. The order contained in Annexure-A deserves to and is accordingly quashed.

The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and in case they find that there are no other legal impediments then they would issue an order of appointment after getting the report of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. Let the whole exercise be completed by the respondents within four months from the date of submission of copy of this order. The petition is allowed.