Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court - Orders

Manoj Kumar vs Patna Municipal Corporation &O on 25 August, 2014

Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh

Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16054 of 2008
                 ======================================================
                 MANOJ KUMAR SON OF LATE ABHIMANYU SINGH, RESIDENT
                 OF NEW YARPUR JANTA ROAD, JAIRAM GALI POST OFFICE GPO
                 GARDANIBAGH, PATNA                                      .... .... Petitioner
                                                     with
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16441 of 2008
                 ======================================================
                 SANJU KUMAR, SON OF LATE KRISHNANAD BAHADUR,
                 RESIDENT OF MADHOPUR BAKHTIYARPUR POST OFFICE AND
                 POLICE STATION BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA AT
                 PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHANPUR PUNAICHAK, NEAR RAM
                 LOCHAN VATIKA APARTMENT, PATNA
                                                                           .... .... Petitioner
                                                     with
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16568 of 2008
                 ======================================================
                 PAPPU KUMAR, SON OF LATE SURESH PANDIT, RESIDENT OF
                 PHAISAHAT KI MAIDAN, PATNA CITY, POST OFFICE JHAUGANJ,
                 POLICE STATION CHOWK, PATNA
                                                                           .... .... Petitioner
                                                    Versus
                 1. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAVING OFFICE AT BUDH
                     MARG, NEAR GPO POLICE STATION KOTWALI PATNA
                     THROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF
                     EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 2. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                     OFFICER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAVING OFFICE
                     AT BUDH MARG, NEAR GPO POLICE STATION KOTWALI
                     PATNA
                 3. ADDL.             COMMISSIONER,          ESTABLISHMENT,           PATNA
                     MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,                 HAVING OFFICE AT BUDH
                     MARG, NEAR GPO POLICE STATION KOTWALI PATNA
                 4. ADMINISTRATOR, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
                     HAVING OFFICE AT BUDH MARG, NEAR GPO POLICE
                     STATION KOTWALI PATNA
                                                                .... Respondents in all cases
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 (In all writ petitions)
                 For the Petitioners      : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate
                 For the Corporation      : Mr. Ranjit Kr. Pandey, Advocate

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH
                 ORAL ORDER

8   25-08-2014

The issues involved in the batch of these writ petitions Patna High Court CWJC No.16054 of 2008 (8) dt.25-08-2014 2/5 are common, as such, I have taken them up together for hearing and disposal.

The petitioners pray for direction to the respondents to give effect to the recommendation of the Compassionate Committee of the Patna Municipal Corporation dated 6.2.2002 (Annexure 1), and partially modify the initial order of appointment issued vide Memo no. 86 dated 7.2.2002 to the extent of appointing him on Class III post in stead of Class IV post.

Fathers of all the four petitioners were employees under the Corporation. They died in harness. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for their compassionate appointment. The Compassionate committee in its meeting dated 6.2.2002 considered the case of about 155 candidates whose parents had died in harness. The Compassionate committee after due consideration recommended the name of petitioners and many others for appointment on Class III post.

The grievance of the petitioners is that almost all such persons, except for the petitioners, too were recommended and appointed on Class III post. The petitioners state that they had all the requisite qualifications for appointment on Class III post, still they were discriminated by appointing them against Class Patna High Court CWJC No.16054 of 2008 (8) dt.25-08-2014 3/5 IV post. They state that previously also the Corporation vide its Office order no. 182 dated 2.6.1992, modified Office order no. 147, dated 19.5.1992 and appointed Sri Rajendra Prasad and Sri Sujit Kumar on Class III post of Assistant, though they were initially appointed on Class IV post of Safai Majdoor. A copy of order dated 2.6.1992 is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Similarly, one Bishwamohan Prasad, who was earlier appointed on compassionate ground on Class IV post of Safai Majdoor vide office order no.216 dated 31.12.1991, has also been appointed on the Class III post of Peshkar Nirikshak vide order dated 16.11.1991. One Ravindra Kumar, who was initially appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Class IV post of Helper vide Office order no. 440 dated 5.6.1984, has been appointed on the post of Tax Collector vide Office order dated 21.10.1994.

It appears that in view of the representations of the petitioners to correct the mistake and partially modify the appointment letter dated 7.2.2002, the Municipal Commissioner recommended their case. However, the Standing committee of the Corporation did not concur with the recommendation of the Municipal Commissioner and rejected their case for their absorption in Class III post.

4/5

I find that, save and except the petitioners and may be a few others, almost all persons recommended for appointment on compassionate ground on Class III post, have duly been appointed against those posts. It is not in dispute that the petitioners possess the necessary qualification for being appointed on Class III post. It is true that the persons seeking compassionate appointment cannot be a chooser and cannot put a strict claim that they be necessarily appointed against a particular post on a particular date. A host of factors are considered before a person is appointed in a particular grade on compassionate ground, particularly availability of vacancies, qualification and suitability of the applicant and circumstances in which such appointment is made. However, even in the matters of compassionate appointment, when a number of appointments are made in one single transaction, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would equally come into play, if a candidate, similarly situated, has been discriminated unjustly and unfairly without any basis. Here out of about 34 persons recommended for compassionate appointment on Class III, almost all, except for petitioners have been appointed in the same grade. No explanations have been provided as to why petitioners have been left out. Such action cannot be said to be Patna High Court CWJC No.16054 of 2008 (8) dt.25-08-2014 5/5 reasonable and fair and would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In this view of the matter, I direct the Standing Committee of the Corporation to reconsider the case of the petitioners for their absorption in Class III post against available vacancies or vacancies that may exist in future, and dispose of the matter within four months.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.

U