Rekha Kumari vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.—Heard the Counsel for the parties.

Mr. Ravi Kumar, J.C. to S.C.-II Bhavesh Kumar appears on behalf of the respondents and Mr. Rajan Sahay appears on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground in place of her father, who was working as Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Pramanik Vidyalaya, Gondih, Sonahatu, died in harness on 10.02.1992. It is the case of the petitioner that her father namely, Makhan Mahto died on 10.02.1992 during service period and was working as Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Pramanik Vidyalaya,Gondih, Sonahatu. After his death mother of the petitioner namely, Jaymani Devi, applied for employment/appointment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband. She made representation to this effect on 25.02.1993. Jaymani Devi mother of the petitioner made representation for appointment of her daughter Rekha Kumari on 03.08.2007 which is at Annexure-2. The said application was forwarded to the D.C., Ranchi with a prayer to give employment to her daughter. The District Education Superintendent, Ranchi vide letter dated 17.02.2011 rejected the case of the petitioner along with the application of the mother on the ground of limitation that has been preferred after lapse of several years i.e. beyond 5 years which is prescribed limitation time for making application for compassionate appointment. While rejecting the application vide order dated 17.02.2011 it has been clearly said that as the application seems to be a forged one after limitation, therefore, it is being rejected.

The Respondent-State has filed counter-affidavit and in paragraph No.9 of the counter-affidavit it is the stand of the respondent that as per the resolution dated 25.05.1989 of Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms period for claiming application has been extended upto 5 years from the death of Government employee and the application for appointment by the mother of the petitioner is beyond 5 years and as such it has been rejected.

Going through the record of the case, I find that rejection order is at page 23 of the writ application which says that application made by the mother of the petitioner was a forged one prima facie it seems to be forged one and the application of the petitioner is delayed one i.e. after five years. At page 25 and page 23 and page 28 it is a letter of Block Education Extension Officer, Sonhatu seeking clarification from the office of the Education Officer which clearly says that application was made in the year 1993 which was duly forwarded by the Principal Raju Mohan Singh Munda and Trilok Nath Mahto of Sonahatu. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents based on the rejection order at page 23 is not well founded and is beyond the records.

Considering rival contention of the parties it is inferred that as the application was belated one and as such it was not considered is not in accordance with law and based on wrong presumption which is crystal clear from the records i.e. page 25,27 and 28. In view of the aforesaid observation, the order of rejection dated 21.07.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Direction is given to the respondent No.2 and 3 the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and District Education Superintendent, Ranchi to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of four weeks and after the reconsideration if it is found that application of the petitioner''s mother was well within time the process of appointment on compassionate ground has to be done within a further period of two weeks and if the petitioner is found to be entitled for appointment, letter of appointment regarding compassionate appointment should be issued within a further period of 15 days.

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed.