Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
Prem Chand Rai – Appellant
Versus
Damodar Valley Corporation, through its Chairman and ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.251 of 2018 With I.A. No.10123 of 2019
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tapasa Kabiraj, Advocate
Headnote:
(A) Labour and Industrial Law - Compassionate Appointment - Rejection of claim - Appointment on compassionate ground is to be made on the basis of a scheme floated by the establishment - Where statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any way - Very object of a scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground is to meet out crises due to sudden demise of bread earner - When a family has survived for such a long period no appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided otherwise same will frustrate very object and scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground - Appointment on compassionate ground is not a fundamental right rather it is exception to Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India - Dismissal of writ petition as also instant appeal will not come in way of disbursing amount of Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in accordance with law. (Paras 12, 25, 26 and 27)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Appointment on compassionate ground is not a fundamental right rather it is exception to Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and appointment purely govern under scheme floated by establishment.(Paras 19 and 20)
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.10123 of 2019 :
1. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 633 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted while pressing the instant interlocutory application that delay in filing the appeal has occasioned due to filing of civil review against the order passed in writ petition being Civil Review No.102 of 2017 but the same was allowed to be withdrawn on 23.02.2018 with a liberty to prefer the Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter the appellant/writ-petitioner since is having no means of income has collected money to engage a lawyer and filed appeal which caused delay.
Further submission has been made that the delay is not intentional and if the delay in filing the appeal would not be condoned, the appellant/writ-petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury as because the issue will remain undecided.
3. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the DVC has raised serious objection to the averment and plea taken in the interlocutory application by filing a rejoinder to the limitation petition.
4. This Court, after having herd the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reason for delay in filing the instant appeal as also the objection filed by the respondent-DVC, is of the view that the delay has sufficiently been explained by the appellant/writ-petitioner.
5. This Court is further of the view that instead of going on technicality by dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay it would be in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on merit, therefore, is of the view that it is a fit case where the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned.
6. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands allowed and the delay in preferring the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
L.P.A. No.251 of 2018:
7. The instant intra-court appeal is against the order passed in W.P.(S) No.5921 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the order passed by the respondent-DVC rejecting the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined to be interfered with.
8. The brief facts in narrow compass as has been pleaded by the appellant/writ petitioner before the writ court as also in the present memo of appeal is hereunder as:
The father of the appellant/writ petitioner, Late Bhola Nath Rai died in harness on 13.09.2002 while posted at Bokaro Thermal Power Station (in short BTPS), Bokaro as Security Guard.
The appellant/writ petitioner who claims to be qualified person having qualification of intermediate of Science as on the date of death of his father i.e., on 13.09.2002, has applied for appointment on compassionate ground within the stipulated period before the competent authority of the respondents. The Personnel Officer of the respondent DVC, Thermal Power Station, Bokaro has issued a certificate on 20.07.2004 to the effect that the appellant/writ petitioner is empaneled candidate of compassionate category by panel No.105 dated 29.04.2007. The appellant/writ petitioner when has not been issued with the offer of appointment, had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6976 of 2007 before this Court in which the respondent DVC has contested the case by filing counter affidavit, inter alia taking the stand that the appellant/writ petitioner could not be offered compassionate appointment due to dearth of vacancy as per the policy of the DVC for appointment on compassionate ground. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 20.11.2008 by which the direction was issued upon the respondents to consider the case of the appellant/writ petitioner on compassionate ground in accordance with the certificate as has been issued by the respondent authorities.
The order passed by the authority in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6976 of 2007 has been ass
