Kaushlendra Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 15.12.2014 contained in memo no. 1560 whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents and further for his appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father who died in harness,

The factual exposition as delineated in the writ petition is that father of the petitioner Late Ishwar Prasad was posted and working in the post of Compounder in the office of respondent no. 4 i.e. Employees'' State Insurance Programme. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 27.12.2009 during his service tenure and in this regard a death certificate was issued from the office of the Department of Planning & Development on 17.02.2010.

An application was filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2010 for his appointment on compassionate ground. The other family members of the petitioner, by executing affidavits duly notorised on 20.05.2010, had given their no objection regarding appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground on account of their late father. The Director, Employees State Insurance Programme (Respondent No. 4) vide his letter dated 28.09.2010 requested the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Koderma (Respondent No. 2) to inform the decision taken by the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee regarding appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

It was learnt that application of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment has been rejected by the District Level Compassionate Committee in light of Letter No. 1859, dated 02.09.2011, issued by the Finance Department wherein educational qualification for compassionate appointment has been shown to be matriculation and the petitioner is not a matriculate. It also transpires that on same and similar circumstances, one Ravindra Murmu of Dhanbad has been given compassionate appointment whose application was also pending prior to issuance of letter dated 02.09.2011 of the Finance Department,. The petitioner again made a representation to respondent no. 2 giving reference of the appointment of Ravindra Murmu with a prayer to consider his case for compassionate appointment in light of decision taken by the District Establishment Committee for appointment of Ravindra Murmu as case of the petitioner and that of Ravindra Murmu lie on similar facts. When no order was passed, the petitioner again represented for consideration of his case which was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2014, hence this writ petition.

Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have illegally rejected claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in light of the letter dated 02.09.2011 issued by the Finance Department. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel to buttress his argument draws attention of the Court to Annexure 4 which has been issued by the Director, Labour, Employment and Training Programme, Government of Jharkhand which clarifies that Circular dated 02.09.2011 of the Finance Department is not applicable in the cases which have been taken up for compassionate appointment before 02.09.2011.

On the other hand Mr. L.C. N. Shahdeo, learned G.P.IV submits that petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 22.07.2010 without completing necessary formalities for consideration by the District Compassionate Appointment Establishment Committee. However, the application was forwarded vide memo no. 1809, dated 28.09.2010 and no. 461 dated 18.03.2013 upon which the department received memo no. 246/Stha. dated 03.04.2013 whereby it was informed that case of the petitioner was twice considered by the Committee but the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was a non-matriculate whereas the minimum qualification for appointment on compassionate ground in Class IV grade was matriculate in view of the Finance Department Circular no. 1859, dated 02.09.2011. Mr. Shahdeo further submits that case of the petitioner was again forwarded for reconsideration vide memo no. 786 dated 06.06.2013 on the ground that the petitioner had applied in the year 2010 itself i.e. before the date of issuance of Circular dated 02.09.2011 and it was requested by the answering respondents to take a decision in the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the decision taken in the case of Ravindra Murmu of Dhanbad. The District Compassionate Establishment Committee, in its meeting dated 14.06.2014, considering the aforesaid letter dated 06.06.2013 decided to seek advice from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, which, in turn, opined that non-matriculate cannot be considered for compassionate appointment in Grade IV posts and hence rightly it was rejected vide order dated 16.10.2014. Mr. Shahdeo contends that there is no illegality in the order and the case of the petitioner has been considered in all perspective and has been rejected in accordance with law.

Considering rival submission of the parties, it transpires that case of the petitioner was recommended for consideration much prior to issuance of the Circular of the Finance Department dated 02.09.2011 and as such case of the petitioner does not fall under the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 02.09.2011 of the Finance Department. It is also an admitted fact that on similar grounds Ravindra Murmu was also appointed.

Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, settled principles of law, guidelines, circulars and orders, this Court is of the view that case of the petitioner has illegally been rejected by the State as the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of letter dated 02.09.2011 of the Finance Department. Any Circular cannot be given retrospective effect, rather its execution comes from prospective dates. The Hon''ble Apex Court, in the case of N.T. Devinkatti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 has held,

"A service rule usually operates prospectively unless contrary intention is found therein from expressed language or necessary implication"

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, guidelines, rules, circulars and decision, this Court directs the respondents authorities for reconsideration of case of the petitioner as has been done in the case of Ravindra Murmu and a suitable order be passed for his appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say if the petitioner is found entitled for appointment, the appointment letter be issued within a period of four weeks thereafter.

With the aforesaid observations and directions the instant writ petition stands disposed of.