The main legal point established in the judgment is that technical objections should not prevent the grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the conduct of the State as a model employer should be fair and responsible.

JUDGMENT :

The State of Jharkhand has filed this petition seeking review of the order dated 16.01.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4048 of 2013.

2. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned State counsel would contend that compassionate appointment cannot be offered to dependent of a deceased employee who was not regularly appointed on a permanent post and while the rules for compassionate appointment were framed in the year 2015 a direction has been issued by the writ Court to consider claim of wife of the deceased employee who was appointed on purely temporary basis and had passed away in the year 2012.

3. In the order dated 16.01.2014, the writ Court has held as under:

"11. I find that in the counter-affidavit the respondents have admitted that deductions on account of G.P.F. and insurance from the salary of the husband of the petitioner were made. A copy of order dated 20.03.2013 has been brought on record which would indicate that an amount of Rs. 86,825/- has been paid to the petitioner on account of Group Insurance Policy It also appears from the record of the case that the husband of the petitioner was granted revised pay-scale as per 6th Pay Commission Report. A separate Bank Account was open in which the salary of the husband of the petitioner was remitted regularly.

12. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that though, a formal order for regularisation of service of the husband of the petitioner was not passed, he continued in service for more than 20 years on permanent basis. In the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the husband of the petitioner was though entitled for regularisation in service on the post of Warder, he was illegally denied benefit of the same. Since the husband of the petitioner has died on 23.07.2012 and there is no prayer for directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner. It would serve the ends of justice, if for the purpose of granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner is treated as a permanent employee.

13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would be considered by the respondent-authority as if, the husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee. It is further ordered that arrears of salary if any, for the period for which the husband of the petitioner worked, would be released to the petitioner. The respondent-authority is also directed to release the amount of P.F. to the petitioner.”

4. The order passed in Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2017 reads as under :

'(1) Counsel for the appellants is relying upon the document which was never placed before the learned Single Judge, especially which is annexed as Annexure S-4 filed with the supplementary affidavit.

2) As this document was never placed before the learned Single Judge, the same is not permissible to be presented before this Court.

3) Liberty is reserved with the appellants to file a review application.

4) With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal, is hereby disposed of.

5) In view of the final order passed in Letters Patent Appeal, both the interlocutory Applications are disposed of. "

5. A glance at the aforesaid order would disclose that the present review petition must remain confined to the document S-4 which was filed before the Letters Patent Court - S-4 document is the Rules for Compassionate Appointment, otherwise, the challenge to the order dated 16.01.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4048 of 2013 has failed. The expression used in the order dated 13.11.2017 is "disposed of' but in the ultimate analysis there should not be any doubt that the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on merits. There was no prayer by the learned State counsel to withdraw the appeal seeking liberty to file a review petition - as would appear from the order dated 13.11.2017 there was no such prayer made on behalf of the State; and the liberty giv