Manoj Kumar Pandey vs The State of Jharkhand

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against the order of District Compassionate Appointment Committee contained in Memo No. 144 dated 19.04.2002 whereby, petitioner''s application for compassionate was rejected on the ground that his father was Government Servant.

The petitioner had staked his claim for compassionate appointment on the death of his mother on 12.09.1995 in harness, though the said date is disputed by the respondent which is 05.03.1995. In any case, respondents have admitted that petitioner has made application on 25.09.1995 and the petitioner was asked to submit application in the prescribed format through letter dated 12.06.1997. The petitioner''s application in the prescribed format through the school headmaster reached the respondent no. 4-District Superintendent of Education, Pakur on 04.07.1997. The case of the petitioner and others were considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee presided over by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur on 19.04.2002 and was rejected on the ground that his father was already in service at the time of death of the petitioner''s mother. Petitioner has further submitted that the said order was never communicated to him, rather he obtained this information under R.T.I. On 16.01.2013, through which he came to know. His application was rejected and information was communicated only to the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur and District Education Officer, Pakur, but the petitioner was not served with the same. It is also stated by relying upon annexure-6 report of the Block Development Officer, Pakur to the Deputy Collector, District Establishment, Pakur dated 13.12.2001 that the father of the petitioner at that point of time, had superannuated and was not in service. Therefore, the ground for rejecting his application is also based upon incorrect facts and the order impugned was never served upon him and after coming to know of this fact, he has approached this Court in the year 2013.

Counsel for the respondents have stated that at the time of death of the petitioner''s mother, his father was in service. It is also their case that the resolution rejecting the claim of all candidates were informed to the concerned authorities and also to the candidates subsequently. Respondents have taken strong ground of delay and latches to contest the writ petition, stating that the petitioner has moved after eleven years of the said rejection.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. At the outset, it is to be stated that the claim of compassionate appointment is exception to the general rule where all equally eligible are to be considered for public employment. The scheme of compassionate appointment being an exception, has been framed by several such State and instrumentality in order to help the dependent or the family members of the deceased employee dying in harness to tide over the immediate crisis and not rendered destitute. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and Others Vs. Prabhat Singh, . Petitioner''s claim was considered and rejected in the year 2002 itself. It is not in dispute that at the time of death of the mother of the petitioner, his father was alive and therefore, claim for compassionate appointment on that ground was not sustainable. In any case, petitioner even if he was not aware of the order rejecting his application, he has approached this Court after eighteen years since the date he made his application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has obtained the information under the R.T.I. From the office of the Deputy Collector, District Establishment-cum-Public Information Officer, Pakur which states that the said resolution of 19.04.2002 was communicated to the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur and District Education Officer, Pakur. Petitioner however sat over the matter all along and therefore allowed his remedy to be defeated because of efflux of time.

In that view of the matter, claim for compassionate appointment is not sustainable as the writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches. Therefore, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.