Manju Singh @ Manju Sinha vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner''s husband died while working as a Head Constable in Baghmara Police Station, Dhanbad on being shot on 30th January 1991 while on duty. The son of the present petitioner Kunal Kishore Singh was minor at the relevant point of time having date of birth as 5th January 1988. On attaining the age of majority on 5th January 2006 and on completion of age of 21 years on 5th January 2009, the petitioner widow applied for his compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband. However, the same was rejected by order dated 24th December 2011 in view of the Memo No. 6817 dated 25th May 1989 which laid down the time limit of five years for making such an application for compassionate appointment.

The writ petitioner approached this Court in WPS No. 4115/2012 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically within a period of sixty days as also looking into the financial status of the petitioner and whether she is still unemployed. Once again, by the impugned order contained at Annexure-10, the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by order dated 18th December 2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, on the ground that the claim is itself time barred being beyond the period of five years. It also refers to Memo dated 6th December 2012 laying down the guidelines in the matters of compassionate appointment. The petitioner has once again assailed the same.

Respondents have defended their action with the main plea that after 22 years of death of the bread earner of the family, such appointment on compassionate ground cannot be made in view of catena of judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court.

In the aforesaid state of facts, it is apparent that the claim for compassionate appointment of the son of the petitioner was made almost 15 years after the death of the employee Late Yogendra Narayan Singh when son of the petitioner has attained the age of majority on 5th January 2006. It is also not in dispute that the scheme for compassionate appointment applicable under the respondent Government and the erstwhile State of Bihar lay down time limit of five years for making such an application. The application for compassionate appointment therefore has been preferred much after five years of the death of the employee. Respondents are bound to act within the terms and conditions of the scheme under which compassionate appointment is to be made. Since the appointment on compassionate ground is departure from the normal rule of employment which provides due opportunity to all such eligible persons, the same has to be considered within the confines of the scheme. Therefore, misplaced sympathy has no place in such circumstances. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in several judgments.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and others [(2006) 9 SCC 195]. It however appears that in the instant case, on the death of the employee in harness in 1991, the widow had made an application for compassionate appointment in 1993 within time which was rejected as not being in prescribed format. Appellant''s son then applied in 1995 once again which was rejected in 2001 on the ground that at the time of application, appellant was 13 years of age. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon''ble Apex Court directed the authority to consider his application within the stipulated time as at the time of rejection, the appellant had crossed 18 years of age.

On the other hand, respondents have relied upon a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Rai v. The State of Jharkhand and others 2010 (2) JLJR 140 (Jhr.) wherein in more or less similar facts and circumstances, when an employee had died in harness in 1991 and application was made for compassionate appointment in 2006 showing the cause of minority as the reason for delay, the same was however not accepted as being made after considerable delay of the death of the bread earner of the family and the family had survived for substantial period. In the instant case also, the petitioner widow does not appear to have made any application for her compassionate appointment after death of her husband and the claim for her son was made more than 15 years of the death of the employee. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be blamed for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as being time barred under the relevant scheme for compassionate appointment. Apparently, the family has survived for almost 22 years after the death of the bread earner and in such circumstances, the whole aim and object of granting compassionate appointment to tide over the immediate crisis on the death of the bread earner of the family and to prevent the family from being rendered destitute, would be defeated. Reference may also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, The writ petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.