Mukesh Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner by

releasing salary with interest from the date of appointment/joining i.e 03.12.2013 till date; further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to

take work form the petitioner which has orally been stopped from June, 2014; and further for direction upon the respondents to approve the

appointment of petitioner.

The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 28.11.2013 in Class IV and accordingly, he joined

on 03.12.2013 under the respondents, but, his salary was not released. It has further been submitted that in the appointment letter though it is

mentioned that appointment of the petitioner be confirmed in anticipation of meeting of Advisory Board headed by Dy. Commissioner but

unfortunately for the last number of years no meeting of Advisory Board was held, for which the petitioner is suffering. Under such circumstances,

the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities for redressal of his grievances, but it did not evoke any response. Left with no alternative, the

petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his

grievances.

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Chandra Prabha, learned S.C. IV being assisted by Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai,

A.C to learned S.C. IV for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to rejoinder affidavit submitted that as a matter of fact, the father of the petitioner was initially

employed in District Collectorate and subsequently, his posting was placed in DRDA, Godda and in his tenure no separate employment has ever been

made in DRDA, Godda as such no meeting of District Management Board has been held before the time of death of deceased-employee; hence the

averment made in the counter affidavit contrary to above statement is quite misleading. Raising the question of parity learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that number of similarly situated employees (Priska Kisku) who was appointed on compassionate basis and posted in the office of District

Rural Development Agency has been granted all consequential benefit but the petitioner has been deprived of the same. Referring to paragraph 4 to

the rejoinder affidavit submitted that number of employees as, Suryamukhi Hansda and Rita Kumari, who have been appointed in the manner the

petitioner was appointed in anticipation of its approval has been discharging their duties without any hurdle but in spite of the fact that the petitioner

many times requested to approve his case but he has been stopped to work since 09.06.2014 without calling any explanation or affording any

opportunity. However, till date his approval has not been denied; as such his claim cannot be discarded.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the father of the petitioner was employed in DRDA, Godda and DRDA, Godda

being a non-government agency, it is necessary for any employee of DRDA to have the approval of District Management Board and the Rural

Development Department to become a government employee, which was not done in the case of the deceased-employee (the father of the petitioner)

in place of whom the petitioner was said to be appointed. In the case at hand, since the deceased-employee did not apply for approval in District

Management Board and the government, therefore his appointment was not legal and accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner in place of his

deceased father was also not legal. So far issuance of appointment letter is concerned, in the appointment letter it was clearly stipulated that

appointment was made purely on temporary basis and at any point of time, he could be removed without prior intimation and without assigning any

reason thereof. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the benefit of Government letter dated 13.11.2003 cannot be extended to

the petitioner because the said direction is valid for appointment on compassionate ground of a deceased, who was in government service and in the

case at hand, the deceased employee was not a government servant. So far the instance of parity with one Prisca Kisku is concerned, in his case

compassionate appointment was approved by Rural Development Department vide letter dated 06.02.2008; hence no benefit could be derived on the

ground of parity.

From the pleadings available on record, it appears that petitioner’s father who was employee of District Collectorate was

subsequently posted in District Rural Development Agency, Godda and while continuing as such he died on 08.02.2013 and after his demise, the

petitioner being the son of the deceased was given compassionate appointment on the recommendation of ‘District Compassionate Appointment

Committee’ headed by Deputy Commissioner on 28.11.2013 and was posted in the office of DRDA against the vacant and sanctioned post.

Thereafter, he continued to discharge his duties, where he was asked to do so by issuance of official memo. From perusal of appointment letter, in

particular clause 7, it appears that the same was issued in anticipation of prior approval of ‘District Management Board’ and the

‘Government’. But, from the documents available on record, it appears that the respondents all of a sudden stopped to take work from the

petitioner, on the ground that the respondents came to know that neither his appointment was approved by District Management Board nor by the

Government of Jharkhand. In the same line, the respondents-authorities made an official correspondence vide letter dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure A to

the counter affidavit), in which, it has been mentioned that no work is being taken from the petitioner nor any salary is being paid to him; as the

services of his father (deceased-employee) was not approved by the State government.

Be that as it may be, there is no denial of the fact that the father of the petitioner was legally appointed by the department and when he died his son

is entitled to get compassionate appointment as per the scheme/rule floated/framed by the government and the respondents after issuance of

appointment letter and taking work from the petitioner could not have turned around merely on a hyper-technical ground. Even otherwise also, the

deceased-employee worked for a considerable period with the respondents and it is no fault of the deceased-employee in not getting his services

approved rather it is duty of the concerned department to look out the same, provided there is any fault of the employee. Even otherwise, the petitioner

has also shown parity with the persons, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and this Court finds ground of parity the valid one and the State

must keep in mind that those, who are alike must be treated equally or those who are sailing on a same boat ought not to be given different treatment.

As a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts and discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, the writ petition stands allowed and respondents are

directed to approve the appointment of petitioner since his initial date of joining and extend all consequential benefit forthwith.