Dinesh Kumar Paswan vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Ananda Sen, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground in place of his father who died in harness on 09.06.1999.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner late Nageshwar Ram was working on the post of Forest Guard under the service of Forest Department and while he was in service he died on 09.06.1999. The petitioner submits that his father was the sole bread earner of the family and after his death the whole family is in distress, as such, this petitioner should be appointed on compassionate ground. It has been further submitted that earlier for the same self reliefs a writ petition was filed bearing W.P.(S) No. 3611 of 2008, which was withdrawn on 20.09.2008 because a verbal assurance was given by the respondents authorities that his case will be considered if the said writ petition is withdrawn. The petitioner further submits that after withdrawal of the writ petition the respondents have not acted upon their assurance and hence this writ petition has been filed praying therein to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

Counsel for the respondents appeared and objects the claim of the petitioner. At the very outset, he relying upon the counter affidavit has categorically denied the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that no assurance was ever given by any of the respondents to the petitioner about considering his case for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment after 16 years from the date of death of his father. He further submits that as per own statement of the petitioner he is now 39 years of age and, thus, no appointment can be given to him because he has crossed the maximum age limit for employment. Counsel for the respondents further submits that on the date of death Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited was not at all in existence and, as such, the said Corporation cannot be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

After hearing the counsel for the respective parties, I find that earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 3611 of 2008 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 20.09.2008 and order of withdrawing the writ petition was passed at the instance of the petitioner, which reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition in order to pursue his grievance departmentally.

Permission is granted. This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

From perusal of the said order, there is no reference of any assurance as the petitioner simply withdrew the case to pursue his grievance departmentally.

From the records I find that the father of the petitioner died on 09.06.1999 thus more than 16 years have elapsed. This Hon''ble Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2015 in L.P.A. No. 14 of 2014 (Mukesh Kumar Ravidas v. The Central Coalfields Limited and others) has held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate financial support, but it should not be considered as an alternative mode of appointment. It has also been held that very purpose of compassionate appointment gets frustrated due to long delay. The petitioner and his family have survived these sixteen years, which suggests that at present there is no immediate hardship for which compassionate appointment is necessary. The statement of the respondents that the mother of this petitioner is getting pension has not been denied by the petitioner, also suggests that there is no immediate hardship. The petitioner himself has stated that his date of birth is 11.05.1977 meaning thereby now he is 39 years old. That being so, he has also crossed the maximum age of getting fresh appointment.

In view of the findings made above, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.