Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Andf Ors

On 26.07.2019, the following order was passed by this Court:

"This contempt case has been filed alleging willful violation of the order dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.3005 of 2012.

By an order dated 31.01.2012, claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected.

The order dated 31.01.2012 was impugned by the petitioner before the writ Court.

W.P.(S) No.3005 of 2012 was allowed with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the claim of the writ-petitioner for compassionate appointment.

The writ Court has held that rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of the circular issued by the Personnel Department, that in cases of deemed death compassionate appointment cannot be granted, is unsustainable. This position in law was taken note of by this Court in "Sunil Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors." [W.P.(S) No.6884 of 2013]. The writ Court has held, thus:

"5. This issue is no longer res-integra. In "Bijay Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors." reported in 2013 (4) JBCJ 352 (HC), a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that no distinction between deemed death and natural death can be drawn and compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the basis of Circular dated 22.01.2008. In "Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors." [W.P.(S) No.6884 of 2013], a similar issue fell for consideration before this Court and in the context of civil death rejection of application for compassionate appointment on the basis of Circular dated 22.01.2008 was held not sustainable. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that when it is proved that a man has not been heard of for 7 years by those who could naturally have heard of him if he has been alive, burden of this proof that he is alive is shifted on the person who affirms it. Not only the petitioner and his mother has affirmed that they have not heard of the employee-Dhirendra Prasad Singh for more than last 7 years, the respondents themselves admit that the employee has met with civil death; post-retiral benefits payable to the employee have been paid to the petitioner's mother."

In its meeting held on 23.01.2019, the District Compassionate Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The basis which is recorded in the proceeding dated 23.01.2019 for declining claim of the petitioner is the circular dated 22.01.2008 issued by the Personnel Department and non-supply of documents.

The writ Court's order is extracted in the rejection proceeding.

The proceeding dated 23.01.2019 of the District Compassionate Committee, insofar as rejection of the claim of the petitioner is concerned, is per se contemptuous.

Mr. D.K. Dubey, the learned State counsel states that a Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred on 23.04.2019 against the order dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.3005 of 2012.

Be that as it may, prima-facie, a case for initiating a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been made out. The authority has acted as the Appellate Authority over the writ Court's order. Let a notice be issued to the Deputy-Commissioner, Ranchi, who has presided over the proceeding of the District Compassionate Committee on 23.01.2019, under Appendix-A of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001.

Post the matter on 06.09.2019.

On that day, the contemnor-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi shall remain physically present in the Court.

In the meantime, the contemnor-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi may file his show-cause reply.

Let a copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel."

Now, a show-cause reply dated 02.09.2019 has been filed by the contemnor-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

Mr. Rai Mahimapat Ray, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is present in the Court.

Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned State counsel appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi submits that it was due to some confusion about the law on account of which the writ Court's order was not complied with by the respondents therein. The plea taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is that since the State has decided to challenge the order dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3005 of 2012 by filing a Letters Patent Appeal; L.P.A. No. 326 of 2019, and the said decision was communicated through the letter dated 08.03.2019 by the Under Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha to the Director, School Education and Literacy Department due to which he nurtured a bonafide belief about compliance of the writ Court's order at this stage.

Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned State counsel submits that now in view of the instruction dated 19.08.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, subject to certain conditions, an appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner.

Writ Court's order was to consider the claim of the writ petitioner and after assessing his eligibility such as educational qualification, medical fitness etc., if found eligible, he shall be granted compassionate appointment.

In view of the explanation offered by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and substantial compliance of the writ Court's order via the letter dated 29.08.2019 granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the proceeding in this contempt case is closed, however, it is indicated that the petitioner shall be permitted to tender his joining only after producing requisite certificates and if for any reason he is not able to produce the necessary documents he shall be granted reasonable opportunity to produce the same, and for any justifiable reason if he is not able to establish his eligibility for appointment to the post which has been offered to him his letter of appointment may be suitably modified. It is further clarified that if the petitioner does not fulfill the necessary eligibility criteria for appointment on Class-III or Class-IV post, the appointment letter dated 29.08.2019 shall stand cancelled.

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 255 of 2019 stands disposed of.