Yasmatia Kuer vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on the death of her husband, Late Surydeo Ram, Constable, who is said to have died in harness on 30th December, 2010.

According to the petitioner, she is eligible and otherwise entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the policy decision of the State Government contained in resolution dated 5th October, 1991. The family certificate issued by the competent authority also shows that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased. According to the petitioner, she had made an application before the respondents well within the time which is contained at Annexure-4. However, the respondents have not taken any decision in the matter.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that initially the elder son of the deceased employee, namely, Ajay Paswan had made an application for compassionate appointment and his case was being considered and processed. In the meantime, the petitioner has appeared and staked her claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that she is the widow of the deceased employee. Whether the petitioner is a widow or not is subject to strict proof. In such circumstances, when rival claims have been made by different parties claiming as son and widow of the deceased employee, the petitioner has not been able to take a decision.

According to the petitioner, however, as per the circular annexed as Annexure-2 issued in the year 1991, the widow is to be granted preference in the matter of compassionate appointment ahead of the son. The petitioner has apprehension that if the other person, Ajay Paswan, who is step son of the deceased employee is appointed, he may not take care of the family of the deceased including the petitioner.

Be that as it may, from the facts borne on record, it becomes clear that on the death of the employee, namely, Late Surydeo Ram on 30th December, 2010 while working as a constable under respondent no. 4, Superintendent of Police, Latehar, two persons have made claim for compassionate appointment; one Ajay Paswan claiming himself to be the elder son of the deceased employee and the petitioner claiming herself to be the widow of the deceased employee. The application which has been made by the petitioner as per the policy of the Respondents-State contained at Annexure-4 appears to have been made well within 5 years limitation period for making such an application.

In such circumstances, at this stage, it is desirable that the competent authority under the respondents namely, respondent no. 4, Superintendent of Police, Latehar take an informed decision on the rival claims made by the petitioner as well as other claimant, Ajay Paswan on the question of compassionate appointment on the death of the employee, Late Suryadeo Ram in harness. If the terms of the circular/policy so require, the matter should be placed before the appropriate committee which is supposed to take into consideration cases for such compassionate appointment. The writ petition is accordingly being disposed of by directing the respondent no. 4, Superintendent of Police, Latehar to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner as also the other person for compassionate appointment within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in accordance with law as also the norms and circulars laid down by the State Government so far as the matter of compassionate appointment are concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid term.