Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Durgesh Kumar S/o Late Mahendra Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 370 of 2020, I.A. No. 6143 of 2020
Decided On : 21-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16 – Equality before law – Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment – Period of limitation –Appeal – Condonation of delay – No counter affidavit has been filed opposing prayer for condoning delay – Court are of view that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring appeal within period of limitation – Held, It would not be apt for this Court to direct administrative authorities to consider case of writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground – Otherwise, it will lead to an alternative mode of appointment which will be contrary to principle laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India as also contrary to object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground, which has been formulated to provide immediate relief to dependent of bereaved family – Court, taking into consideration aforesaid fact and case laws referred above, is of view that rejection of claim of writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be unjustified decision – Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
I.A. No. 6143 of 2020
1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 460 days in filing the instant appeal. However, the office in its stamp report dated 28.11.2020 has reported that there is a delay of 447 days in preferring this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.
4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6143 of 2020 is allowed and delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No. 370 of 2020
6. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3695 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with order dated 08.09.2016 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the administrative authority.
7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which is required to be enumerated, read as hereunder:
Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother filed writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being W.P. (S) No. 1078 of 2004 for payment of retiral dues, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2004 with a direction to consider the grievance of the petitioner and release all the admitted retiral dues within a period of two months.
Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother and elder brother Gyan Prakash again represented before the respondents authorities for appointment on compassionate appointment but no order was passed. The petitioner came to know that since service of petitioner’s father was not confirmed, the State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand was reluctant to extend the benefit of giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner or any other members of the family. Subsequently, on efforts being made by mother of the petitioner, the services of the deceased-employee, Mahendra Ram was confirmed by the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter no. 4437 dated 15.09.2011 w.e.f. 13.10.1988.
It has further been stated that after about five years of the disposal of writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 3056 of 2000(R), the petitioner’s brother, Gyan Prakash, became seriously ill and consequently he lost his eye sight to a large extent, as such he was not able to see properly. Therefore, the petitioner filed representation dated 02.12.2011 for consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground before the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Mechanical Division, Hazaribagh, which was rejected vide decision dated 08.09.2016.
Being aggrieved with non-consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3695 of 2017, which was dismissed on the ground that since the deceased-employee was appointed as Pump Khalasi under charged establishment and as per the guide
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
