Jharkhand High Court
Sharda Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 25 July, 2017
Author: D.N.Patel
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, D.N.Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 38 of 2017
Sharda Devi widow of late Birendra Sahu resident of Namkum
Bazar, Khijri, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-Kutchery, P.S. Kotwali,
Ranchi
4. The Dy. Collector, District Establishment, Ranchi, P.O. Kutchery,
P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi
5. The Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation,
Ranchi Circle, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S., Doranda, Ranchi
6. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division,
Ranchi, P.O. & P.S, Doranda, Ranchi
... ... Respondents/Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-----
For the Appellant: M/s S.K. Sinha
For the Respondents: J.C. to G.P.II
-----
th
06/Dated 25 July, 2017
Per D.N. Patel, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original Petitioner who has preferred W.P.(S) No. 7601 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 17th October, 2016 and whereby, the claim of this appellant for getting compassionate appointment because of death of her husband on 23rd December, 2004 has been rejected and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the husband of this appellant (original petitioner) expired on 23rd December, 2004. He was in service of the respondent State. If further appears from the facts of the case that he was working as a Work Charge employee when he expired. Services of this deceased employee was regularised in the year 2007.
3. As per as per Clause 'Kha' of Government Circular issued on 16th July, 2008, which is at Annexure 3/1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, if any employee who was not regularised and has expired then the legal heir of such deceased employee cannot get compassionate appointment. The services of the deceased employee have been regularised after the death of the employee.
4. This circular dated 16th July, 2008 issued by the State was not under -2- challenge at all. If this circular is not under challenge and is read as it is then this appellant cannot get compassionate appointment because her husband was a work charge employee as on the date of his death, i.e. 23rd December, 2004.
5. Moreover, the purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now . More than one dozen year have passed after the date of death of the husband of the appellant. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as an employment by right. It is an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Only with a view to give immediate financial support to the family of the deceased such compassionate appointment is given as an exception to the Rule, but the compassionate appointment cannot be given after lapse of more than one dozen year, specially in the light of the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138
(ii) Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192
(iii) Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481
(iv) MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 :
6. The aforesaid aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 7601 of 2013 vide Order dated 17th October, 2016 and we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge.
7. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(D.N.Patel, A.C.J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) s.m.