Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pramath Patnaik, J.
Md. Danish Eqbal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 7230 of 2012
Decided On : 25-07-2018
For the Appellant : Ashrafuzzaman Khan.
For the Respondents: Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Neelam Tiwary.
An employee acquires a substantive right on the post and his services cannot be terminated except on specific grounds and in accordance with the procedure laid down in law, as well as without compliance with the principle of natural justice.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Appointment of Child Police - - [Anil Kumar Das and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 JCR 281, Sakhichand Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1991) 1 PLJR 67, Ram Kishun Ram vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and Others, 2010 (1) JCR 50] - The court considered the legal provisions related to compassionate appointment and substantive right of an employee, emphasizing the right to livelihood as an integral facet of the right to life. The court relied on precedents to support the principle that once a person is appointed in accordance with the law, he acquires a substantive right on the post and his services cannot be terminated except on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure laid down in law, as well as without compliance with the principle of natural justice. The court directed the respondents to consider the employment of the petitioner in any other job which he could render even with his physical disability or deformity pointed out by the Medical Board.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on an appropriate post in lieu of his father's death, who was a constable and died in harness. The petitioner was appointed as Child Police in 2000 and worked continuously up to 2006. His salary was stopped, and he was orally removed from his duties without any reason. The petitioner approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had worked continuously without any break and was facing acute financial crisis. It held that once a person is appointed in accordance with the law, he acquires a substantive right on the post and his services cannot be terminated except on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure laid down in law, as well as without compliance with the principle of natural justice.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's appointment, cessation of salary, and the right to continued employment in light of compassionate appointment provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principle that once appointed in accordance with the law, an employee acquires a substantive right on the post, and his services cannot be terminated except on specific grounds and in accordance with the procedure laid down in law, as well as without compliance with the principle of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the employment of the petitioner in any other job which he could render even with his physical disability or deformity pointed out by the Medical Board.
1. Heard Mr. Ashrafuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I appearing for the Respondent-State.
2. In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of appropriate writ upon the concerned respondents to appoint petitioner on the appropriate post in lieu of death of his father who died in harness on 25.02.1999 and thereafter petitioner was appointed as Child Police on 8.7.2000 and worked continuously up to 2006 and further prayed for direction upon the respondents to give alternate suitable post in the official work by considering his services as continued right from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 8.7.2000 with all consequential benefits.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, are that the father of the petitioner was appointed on 15.12.1983 on the post of Constable having Police No. 3711 and he died in harness on 25.2.1999 leaving behind 2 minor sons and 2 minor daughters without any other alternate source of income. The mother of the petitioner has also died and at present, there is no one to look after them except his maternal grandfather, who is also a retired Government servant, who after death of his son-in-law made an application before the authorities, inter-alia, pleaded therein for benefit of compassionate appointment to this petitioner, who happens to be the eldest son of the deceased and as per natural Rule entire liabilities lies upon his shoulder and pursuant thereto, vide letter dated 25.04.2000, petitioner was appointed on the post of "Child Police" and was given posting at Jamshedpur. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter of appointment, petitioner joined on 8.7.2000 and allotted child police no. 248 and his service book was opened on 11.8.2001 after completion of all formalities like medical check up on 8.6.2000 and height measurement on 12.5.2000. The respondents authorities asked the petitioner to bring the eye medical fitness certificate than petitioner approached before the Doctor's of railway hospital than the doctor at the said time asked the petitioner to bring the certificate of doctor from outside than applicant got the test of his eye from the outsider doctor on 16.5.2000 and submitted on 17.5.2000 due to absence of doctor, the further checkup of eye was completed on 8.6.2000 and since the date of appointment petitioner was regularly getting his consolidated amount as salary up to year 2006 without any break in duty, but suddenly his salary has been stopped and he has been orally removed from his duties without assigning any reason. The petitioner repeatedly visited before the authorities for his appointment but no action was initiated by the respondents. Vide letter dated 17.1.2011, the respondents authorities have asked the present petitioner to appear before the Rail Police Centre for eye test on 27.1.2011 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner reported for his eye test and on 28.1.2011 alongwith Inspector of Ranchi Rail Police, but test was not conducted and thereafter no communication came from the respondents that when the eye test shall be conducted. It has been further averred that after much wait and watch petitioner also invoked the Right of Information Act, 2005 on 8.10.2012 seeking information about the next date of eye test and cause of non-conduction of the test on the fixed date when petitioner was present alongwith Ranchi Railway police personnel at RIIMS, Ranchi, but till date no reply has come from the respondents. Left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has already been appointed right in the year 8.7.2000 and he continued to work up to 2006 without any break but without any reason he has been stopped from working an
