Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 22 November, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 6547 of 2017
Rajesh Kumar..... ......Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director General of Home Guard, Doranda, Ranchi.
3. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Ramarh
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh,
5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Hazaribagh.
6. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Kotwali, Ranchi.
.....Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner(s): M/s Manoj Kr. Choubey & Pradeep Kr. Choubey,
Advocates.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Md. Shahabuddin, SC-VII
Mr. Zaid Iman, AC to SC-VII
-----
06/22.11.2022: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for compassionate
appointment as the father of this petitioner, who was home guard, died in harness on 30.12.2015, while he was on duty.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that vide Order No. 239/2017, one Smt. Kusum Dubey was given compassionate appointment permanently, thus the petitioner should also be given the same treatment as given to Smt. Kusum Dubey, and they also be permanently employed.
3. It is admitted by the parties that the father of this petitioner was Home Guard. It is also admitted that he died in harness on 30.12.2015. The claim of compassionate appointment itself is against Articles 14 and 16 to the Constitution of India, thus, there cannot be any deviation from the scheme of compassionate appointment.
4. In the instant case, the counsel for the parties submits that there is a scheme of compensation and compassionate appointment for home guards. The said scheme is on record with the counter affidavit. The said scheme finds incorporated in Jharkhand Home Guard (Volunteers) Rule, 2014. Clause 28 of the scheme provides for payment of compensation in case of death of a Home Guard. Clause 28 of the said scheme reads as under:-
28- eqvkotk e`R;q] 'kkjhfjd pksV@gkfu@nq?kZVuk ds ekeys esa lHkh x`g j{kd ¼i½ Lo;alsod tks dÙkZO; ij cqyk;s x;s gSa] eqvkotk vFkok vuqxzg@vuqnku ds gdnkj gksaxs tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA ¼ii½ ¼e`r x`g j{kd ds ekeys esa½ ;fn e`R;q dkWy vi ds nkSjku gqbZ gS] rks mlds ;ksX; vkfJr dks x`g j{kd ds :i esa egklekns"Vk }kjk x`g j{kdksa dh fjfDr ds fo:) ukekafdr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼iii½ Hkqxrku ds vk/kkj ij nwljs laxBuksa esa izfrfu;qDr dks lacaf/kr laLFkk@laxBu }kjk mifu;e ¼i½ vkSj ¼ii½ ds vuqdwy vuqxzg vuqnku Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA From perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that if a Home Guard dies in harness one of the dependents should be empanalled as Home Guard and monetary compensation is to be granted to the family. There is no provision for permanent appointment.
5. It is admitted in this case that this petitioner has been empanalled as Home Guard. Counsel for the petitioner submits that compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the schemes has not been paid to the family of the deceased Thus, I find that the petitioner has not got all the benefit in terms of the scheme.
6. So far as averment of the petitioner that he should be given same treatment as that of Smt. Kusum Dubey is concerned, I find that she was appointed. The scheme does not provide for permanent appointment on compassionate ground. If any illegality has been committed by the respondent, this Court can not be a party to it and direct the respondent to act in similar manner. There can not be equality in illegality. The petitioner is only entitled to get the benefits as per the scheme.
7. Thus, I direct the respondent authority to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation amount to the family of the deceased, if not already paid. No other relief(s) can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application .
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
Anu/-CP2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)