Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Dr. Satish Midha @ Satish Kumar Midha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. Nos. 1202, 1203 of 2009
Decided On : 26-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Mr. Akchansh Kishore.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arbind Kumar Choudhary.
Headnote:
Claim of compensation – Condo nation of delay - It is submitted that application for compassionate appointment for elder brother of appellant was submitted within time and after his death another application was submitted which was also within time - Briefly stated mother of appellant who was employed under respondent died in harness she was appointed - An application for compassionate appointment for the elder brother of appellant was submitted who unfortunately died in a road accident - Before writ Court, it was pleased that another application for compassionate appointment this time for the appellant, was submitted - However, it was denied by the respondent-M/s CCL that any such application was received - It is stated that an application for compassionate appointment to appellant was submitted only – Held, Whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable family to tide over sudden crisis - Object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood - Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of family of deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family - Posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over emergency - Provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable land valid since it is not discriminatory favorable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution - No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute - Exception to rule made in favor of family of deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and 6 the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned - It has been brought on record that father of the appellant is working and the family has survived for long 9 years before the claim for compassionate appointment to appellant was raised and it was about 13 years since then when the employer- M/s CCL passed order - Today, it is and appellant has either crossed age was not eligible for appointment having not attained the age of 18 years at the time when his mother died - Delay by employer taking a final decision in the matter, in view of the aforesaid facts, is of no consequence - This is not such a case in which employment has been denied to the appellant on account of and delay on the part of employer – Appeal dismissed
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. The present petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.01.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1458 of 2006 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A IPC has been taken against the petitioners, pending before the said Court.
2. The brief facts giving rise to lodging of Complaint Case No. 1458 of 2006 is that the brother of the complainant-O.P. No. 2 namely Mithilesh Kumar Ray (now deceased) was suffering from the ailment of gall bladder stone for which the petitioner-Dr. Satish Midha was consulted on 05.08.2006, who after necessary tests done on 05.08.2006 and 06.08.2006, advised for operation/surgery of gall bladder stone along with appendix. Dr. Satish Midha told the O.P. No. 2 and Mithilesh that he was an expert in conducting surgery by Laparoscopic method and he would see to the risk which might occur after surgery. Dr. Satish Midha thus induced the complainant to get the said surgery done by him with a view to earn money and on such assurance, the complainant agreed for the surgery. Accordingly, the surgery by Laparoscopic method was done on 07.08.2006 by Dr. Satish Midha after which Mithilesh remained in the hospital till he was discharged in the morning of 10.08.2006. However, Mithilesh again experienced pain in the noon. Dr. Midha was informed about the pain at about 2.30 P.M. on his mobile phone and was requested to re-admit the patient, but he told that there was no necessity for the same. He prescribed some medicines on mobile phone and further told the complainant not to admit Mithilesh in any other hospital out of Ranchi. On 10.08.2006 at 6.10 P.M. the complainant went to the hospital of Dr. Midha where he came to know that Dr. Midha had departed for Hyderabad. Dr. Midha’s Assistant consulted Dr. Midha on phone and thereafter he prescribed some medicines. However, the pain increased and after midnight, the patient’s urinary system stopped functioning. On 11.08.2006, the complainant again approached Dr. Midha on mobile and he was advised to admit Mithilesh in the hospital and accordingly the treatment re-started in the hospital of Dr. Midha. When the condition of Mithilesh did not improve, the Assistant of Dr. Midha again contacted Dr. Midha on mobile, who advised him to get Mithilesh admitted in Gurunanak Hospital. Thereafter, Mithilesh was admitted to Gurunanak Hospital, Ranchi on 12.08.2006 at about 7.30 A.M. where the petitioner-Dr. R.K. Singh and other doctors conducted surgery of his stomach on 13.08.2006. However, Mithilesh died in Gurunanak Hospital on 14.08.2006 at about 01.10 A.M. It has been alleged in the complaint that Dr. Satish Midha was not having proper knowledge to use the apparatuses for performing laparoscopic surgery. During the Laparoscopic surgery, the instruments were also not properly sterilized and Dr. Midha due to his gross negligence, caused damage to some other vital internal organs and urinary system of Mithilesh and consequently he died.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are several contradictions and improvements in statements of the complainant dated 23.11.2006 recorded on oath vis-a-vis the statements made in the complaint. Three enquiry witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they made palpable improvements evidently with a view to somehow implicate the said doctors. The impugned order of cognizance has been passed on non-existent facts and the same is based on misconceived notions about the medical science. The Court below has substituted itself as an expert in the medical field holding that now-a-days stone or appendix surgery are not considered to be very serious. Conjectural inferences have been drawn regarding the necessity of second surgery. It is further submitted that no expert opinion was resorted to before taking cognizance or issuing summons against the petitioners which is
