Santosh Kumar Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 April, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Santosh Kumar Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 April, 2010

Having heard counsel for the parties as also after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application the delay of 32 days in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned.

I.A. No.3329 of 2010 is allowed.

L.P.A. No.646 of 2010.

In view of the fact that we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up this appeal for final disposal on merits at the stage of admission itself. 2 We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties at length.

By the impugned order dated 27.1.2010 in C.W.J.C. No.14087 of 2009 the learned Single Judge has rejected prayer of the appellant-writ petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.4.2009, whereby and whereunder, claim for compassionate appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner was rejected primarily on the ground of delay. The learned Single Judge having taken note of that the father of the appellant-writ petitioner had died in harness on 7.6.1996, had refused to interfere in the order rejecting claim for appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner on compassionate ground by recording that the application for compassionate appointment was filed after more than five years of death of his father and thus barred in terms of policy of the State Government.

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, however, has submitted that when father of the appellant-writ petitioner had died on 7.6.1996, the 3 appellant-writ petitioner was aged about 14 years and therefore after he had attained majority he had filed an application in the prescribed Performa which came to be rejected by order of the District Superintendent of Education dated 11th April, 2009 wholly on the ground of its being filed after five years from the date of death of father of the appellant-writ petitioner. Mr. Sharma in this context has referred to large number of documents to impress upon us that as the petitioner was aged about 14 years (date of birth 15.4.1982) only on the date of death of his father, i.e, on 7.6.1996, the application filed by his mother on 27.6.1997 ought to have been treated as beginning point of the period of five years as prescribed in the government policy.

In the opinion of this Court, submission of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, the authority, District Superintendent of Education has clearly recorded that such application for compassionate appointment by the appellant-writ petitioner was filed for the first time in his office on 28.2.2009, i.e, after almost 15 years of 4 death of Late Janardan Ram. There being nothing to deny this aspect save and except one sided application without there being any proof of its being filed and that too in the prescribed Performa, this Court cannot hold that the appellant-writ petitioner had filed any application prior to 28.2.2009. The Scheme of the State Government for compassionate appointment lays down the maximum period of five years in which such application for compassionate appointment has to be filed. Thus, the respondents were fully justified in not entertaining the application filed almost after 15 years of death of the deceased employee.

There would be yet another circumstance to reject the case of the appellant-writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as, he claims to be the son of the deceased employee Late Janardan Ram who is said to have died on 7.6.1996. The matriculation certificate of the appellant-writ petitioner issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education dated 20.2.1997 goes to show that the appellant-writ petitioner was son of one Srikant Rai. His admit card of 5 the Intermediate Examination dated 11.9.1998 also goes to show that his father's name was Srikant Rai and such entry of his father's name is further corroborated from the certificate of Honor issued by Arvindo Commercial Institute dated 13th November, 2000 which also describes him as son of Srikant Rai. These facts with regard to the appellant-writ petitioner being an adopted son of Late Janardan Rai, the deceased employee, is sought to be displaced on the basis of an affidavit before the Notary Public on a declaration of Two Rupees stamp paper showing the appellant-writ petitioner to have been adopted by Janardan Rai. The story of adoption in absence of a registered document can have no evidentiary proof and especially when the certificates issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Bihar Intermediate Council and the Commercial Institute recorded the name of father of the appellant-writ petitioner as Srikant Rai in the years 1997, 1998 and 2000, it would become clear that the alleged unregistered deed of adoption on a plain stamp paper was an in genuine attempt on the part of the appellant-writ 6 petitioner to have obtaining appointment by fabricating the story of adoption. It thus becomes clear as to why the delay has been caused in even coming out with the claim for compassionate appointment, inasmuch as, in the year 1996 when Late Janardan Rai had died he was an issueless person and had left none except his wife as his dependent. In this background if the so called application filed by the wife of Late Janardan Rai, namely, Motijharo Devi is taken into account, it would be found that she had not even named her son in the application (Annexure-2 to the writ application), all that was said therein was that after son would attained majority, an application would be filed for his appointment on the post of teacher by way of compassionate appointment. This informatory petition also cannot be relied because in the same period the appellant-writ petitioner in his declaration before the C.B.S.E., Bihar Intermediate Council and the Commercial Institute had openly declared name of his father as Srikant Rai and not Late Janardan Rai.

Finally, this Court would also concur with the 7 reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the purpose for the compassionate appointment is to provide relief to the dependent members of the deceased employee. Here in this case, widow, the sole dependent of Late Janardan Rai has been able to survive for a period over 15 years and the family of Late Janardan Rai has also received al the death-cum-retirement benefits, which by itself is sufficient for sustenance of only the widow.

In that view of the matter, rejection of claim for compassionate appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity and the learned Single Judge has rightly nipped the whole issue in bud by dismissing the writ application.

That being so, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.




                                                (Dipak Misra, C.J.)


Abhay Kumar                                     ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders