The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dependent of a work charged employee is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment, as determined by the Ram Prasad Singh case and supported by the circulars of the State Government.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy is present.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For quashing the letter as contained in memo no. 3285 dated 18.06.2011 issued under the signature of respondent, Joint Secretary and communicated to the respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the ground that his deceased father had died while working in work charged establishment.

ii) For commanding upon the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and thereupon appoint him on any suitable post on compassionate ground in the concerned department.

(iii) For commanding upon the respondents to pay the entire consequential benefits accrued to the deceased father of the petitioner in the light of his regularization vide order no. 46 dated 28.08.2007, with effect from 06.02.1993.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner while working in work charged establishment expired on 07.10.1998. At that point of time, his mother had applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1999, but her claim was rejected on the ground that compassionate appointment cannot be given on account of death of work charged employee. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the father of the petitioner has been regularized vide memo No. 559 dated 10.02.09 post death, but the date of regularization is w.e.f. 06.02.1993. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner being the son, filed application for compassionate appointment which has been rejected by the impugned order by stating that father of the petitioner had expired while he was work charged employee. Learned counsel submits that once the services of the father of the petitioner was regularized with retrospective date, i.e. 06.02.1993 in regular establishment, the petitioner has right to claim compassionate appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Singh versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2005) 3 JLJR 38, dependents of work charged employee are not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. He has referred to paragraph 17 of the said judgment. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-5 wherein it has been recorded that the petitioner was only 7 years 3 months and 3 days on the date of death of his father. He submits that otherwise also, in view of the circular issued by the State Government, the person who was minor at the time of death of the employee, is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel has submitted that much time has elapsed from the date of the death which was way back as on 07.10.1998, no case for compassionate appointment is made out.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that claim of regularization/absorption of work charged employee was subject matter of consideration by Hon’ble Full bench in Ram Prasad Singh and others versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2005) 3 JLJR 38 in WPS No. 6826 of 2002 and other analogous cases.

7. The Hon’ble Full Bench decided the matter and ultimately held in para 17 which reads as under: -

“17(i) The work charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment.

But the work charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled.

(ii) The dependents of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appoint