Nirmal Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Roshan, J

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment who is the only dependent son of late Parmila Hansda, Ex-Teacher in Primary School, Jiyajori, Godda who died in harness on 24.07.1993.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of his mother within stipulated time and the respondents are sitting over the matter for decades instead of disposing of the representation.

Though a counter affidavit has been filed in this case but there is no averment denying filing of representation by the petitioner and why the representation was not disposed of. It becomes habit of the respondent-State not to consider the representation and/or pass order of approval/rejection and this forces the litigant to knock the door of the Court which is one of the major reasons for increase in litigation. Had there been a case that the representation of any citizen is disposed of within time, the said citizen would have definitely gone through the order and might not have challenged the said order. However, due to non-disposal of the representation of the petitioner, this case has been filed. A counter affidavit has also been filed in this case denying the claim of the petitioner but nowhere it has been stated that an order of rejection has been passed. This Court is not referring the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, inasmuch as, in almost 20 years the respondents have not disposed of the representation of the petitioner which they are legally bound to.

Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent no.4 to consider the record of this writ application as representation and pass a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks.

The instant writ application stands disposed of.