Back
1997 Supreme(Pat) 474
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
Arun Kumar – Petitioner
vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 3913 of 1993
Decided On : 8.7.1997
For the Petitioner: M/s. Ganesh Prasad Singh, B.K. Dubey, S.K. Pandey.
For the State : Mr. Anil Kr. Verma.
Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period or after the crisis of the deceased family is over. However, an application filed within the prescribed limitation period cannot be rejected on the ground of delay till the authority concludes that the sudden financial crisis of the deceased employee's family is over or for some other valid reason.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - DELAY - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION OF GUIDELINES - REJECTION OF APPLICATION - VALIDITY - [CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 12754 DATED 12.7.1977, CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 6817 DATED 25.5.89, CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 13293 DATED 5.10.1991]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father, a State Government employee, died in harness in 1978. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment within time and was selected for Primary Teachers Training course. He completed the training in 1982 but was not provided with an appointment. His name was empanelled in 1984 but he was not given preference. His application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the District Compassionate Committee in 1992 on the ground of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period or after the crisis of the deceased family is over. However, an application filed within the prescribed limitation period cannot be rejected on the ground of delay till the authority concludes that the sudden financial crisis of the deceased employee's family is over or for some other valid reason.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various precedents to hold that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period or after the crisis of the deceased family is over. However, an application filed within the prescribed limitation period cannot be rejected on the ground of delay till the authority concludes that the sudden financial crisis of the deceased employee's family is over or for some other valid reason.
Final Decision: The court set aside the decision of the Compassionate Committee rejecting the petitioner's application and remitted the case for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to produce relevant documents/certificates showing the present assets and earning of the dependants of the deceased employee.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
The matter relates to compassionate appointment. The prayer of the petitioner for such appointment has been rejected by the District Compassionate Committee in their meeting dated 20.4.1992 (Vide Annexure-A). The sole ground of rejection is "delay".
2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. His father Ram Naresh Sharma was a State Government employee posted as Headmaster, Primary School, Bhuakaul in the district of Samastipur. Said Ram Naresh Sharma died in harness on 2.4.1978.
Petitioner filed application for compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher within time. The Director, Research, Training and Education of Government of Bihar by his letter no. 1315 dated 4.8.1978 selected the petitioner for Primary Teachers Training course. The petitioner was sent for training and was admitted against 3% reserved seats which were to be filled up from amongst heirs of deceased Government employee on compassionate ground. The petitioner thereafter carne out successful in the primary teachers training on 29.7.82 (1978-80 Sessions). However, no order of compassionate appointment was provided to him.
It appears that the name of the petitioner was empanelled in the year 1984 in a routine manner for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher Panel has been enclosed by the respondents as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. No preferance was given to the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Name of the petitioner being at Serial no. 79, in normal course he was not provided with appointment.
After a number of reminders the case of the petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Committee which in their metting dated 20.4.92 (vide Annexure-A) has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of "delay".
3. While the counsel for the petitioner relied on some of the decisions of Courts to show that the application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground of delay, counsel for the State relied on certain other decisions in his support.
4. The matter relating to compassionate appointment fell for consideration from time to time before this Court, as well as, Supreme Court. The general view is to reject the claim of compassionate appointment after a long delay.
However, in individual cases, Supreme Court, as well as, this Court allowed the prayer for compassionate appointment, even after a long delay, taking into note that there was no laches on the part of the claimant.
Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain [AIR 1989 SC 1976 : 1991 (1) PLJR (SC) 1] allowed the appeal after about seven years of death of deceased employee. The Court held that delay in appointment and rejection of application in view of ban subsequently imposed on appointment is arbitrary.
In Pinki Kumari case [1997 (1) PLJR 617] a Division Bench of this Court ordered to re-consider the case of appellant Pinki Kumari for compassionate appointment after about eight years taking into note that the appellant applied in time in terms with amended guideline made by Resolution dated 25.5.1989.
This Court in Chandra Bhushan Singh case [1997(1) PLJR 626], while allowed application for compassionate appointment after ten years, held that the applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by the authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant.
The case of Anil Kumar Singh and other analogous cases fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court [1993(1) PLJR 414]. Therein the minor son applied on attaining majority after the prescribed period of limitation. This Court held that the aforesaid act would frustrate the very object and purpose of policy decision. What is material for consideration is the time when the relief is to be granted to a family in distress and not to reserve a job for one of the dependants.
In Prem Narayan and analogous cases [1995(1) PLJR 216], a Division Bench of this Court held that the compassionate appointment is to be made at t
