Praveen Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Aggrieved of order dated 31.01.2012 by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been declined, the petitioner has approached this

court.Â

Briefly stated, petitioner’s father who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1987 and subsequently posted in S.S. High School, Rania,

Khunti on 21.02.1990 was transferred to Kakria High School, Lapung by an order dated 31.12.1998 of the Regional Deputy Director, South

Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. He was relieved on 14.05.1999 from Rania High School but he did not tender his joining in Kakkria High School.

Petitioner’s            grand-mother has lodged a Sanha on 27.06.1999 informing the police that when her son was going to

tender his joining he became traceless from Ratu bus-stand, Ranchi. Seven years thereafter mother of the petitioner submitted affidavit dated

04.07.2006 and a representation seeking compassionate appointment and  post-retiral benefits. In the supplementary counter-affidavit dated

24.07.2018 the respondents have pleaded that petitioner’s father had worked for 9 years 2 months and 24 days and on his death all admissible

post-retiral benefits were paid to his mother. In paragraph no.13 of this affidavit the respondents have given details of the post-retiral benefits paid

to the petitioner’s mother. A copy of Pension Payment Order dated 18.03.2011 by which family pension to the petitioner’s mother was fixed

has also been annexed alongwith affidavit dated 24.07.2018. Â

Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in law there is no distinction between civil death and natural death and, therefore, claim for

compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that this benefit is not granted in cases of deemed death. Stand taken by the respondent-

State is that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted contrary to the scheme for compassionate appointment.Â

The respondents have relied on Circular dated 22.01.2008 issued by the Personnel Department to assert that in cases of deemed death

compassionate appointment cannot be granted.Â

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, Â 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.Â

In the above facts, finding serious infirmity with the impugned order dated 31.01.2012, it is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District

Compassionate Committee for assessing eligibility such as, his educational qualification, medical fitness, etc of the petitioner for his appointment on

compassionate ground. Let a decision in this regard be taken within a period of six weeks  a communication thereof shall be made to the petitioner

within next two weeks thereafter.Â

The writ petition stands allowed.Â