JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the letter No. 1007 dated 09.4.2009 issued by Respondent No.2; whereby the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to make payment of all retiral benefits of late Kamlesh Prasad including family pension and arrear of salary for the period 16.05.2001 to 30.01.2008 to this petitioner who is widow of the deceased employee.

3. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court towards Annexure 6 which is the rejection order and submits that the only reason which has been assigned by the concerned respondent is that the husband of the petitioner has died prior to his regularization.

Learned counsel further submits that in view of the letter as contained in Memo No. 1896 dated 22.11.2007; this petitioner has been absorbed, as such the ground taken by the concerned respondent that the husband of the petitioner has died on 30.01.2008 prior to absorption is non est in the eye of law.

He further submits that the petitioner has not committed any delay in applying for compassionate appointment and as such the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of this petitioner is mala-fide, inasmuch as, during the period of crisis the respondents were duty bound to adhere to the principles of compassionate appointment and when her representation for compassionate appointment was rejected, the petitioner knocked the door of this court.

His next limb of argument is that apart from compassionate appointment, this petitioner is also entitled for arrear of salary plus pension including family pension as the husband of the petitioner was absorbed prior to 18.02.2008, i.e. vide letter dated 22.11.2007, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has been absorbed. As such her claim for retiral benefits is also sustainable in the eye of law. However, for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities the same has been denied.

4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the office of District Public Education in the year 1980 and till 1988 he worked continuously in the office of District Adult & Non-Formal Education Officer, Katihaar under a scheme of the Central Government.

Thereafter, in the year 1988, vide order dated 27.6.1988 issued by the Director, Adult and Non-Formal Education, the petitioner’s husband was transferred to the office of District Public Education Officer, Saharsa and again in the year 1995 his services were transferred to the office of the District Public Education officer, Gumla. However, the said scheme of the Government was closed with effect from 16.5.2001.

Thereafter, to sort out the aforesaid crisis faced by several employees, a Cabinet meeting was called and a decision was taken that all the surplus employees of Non-Formal Education Project be absorbed against vacant sanctioned posts in the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand and accordingly, a list was prepared wherein the name of Late Kamlesh Prasad (petitioner’s husband) appeared at Serial No.2 and the list was sent to the Commercial Taxes Department for absorption. However, before formal letter of absorption could be issued; the petitioner’s husband died.

Learned counsel further submits that there was no delay on the part of the State and even otherwise, now the issue of compassionate appointment, after more than 10 years of the death of the employee, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

5. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastav, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Jharkhand draws attention of this court towards Annexure B to the counter affidavit filed by the State and submits that even adm