IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Pinki Kumari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 994 of 2022
Decided on : 07-12-2023
Compassionate Appointment - Rejection of Claim - Letter no. 10167/(Anu) dated 01.12.2015 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 2015, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the statutory provisions contained in letter no. 10167/(Anu) dated 01.12.2015, Rule 2015, and the constitutional provisions of Article 14 and 16. The court highlighted the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, the legal principles established by previous judgments, and the importance of adhering to the conditions provided in the scheme/rule.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner filed a petition to quash the rejection of her claim for appointment on compassionate ground as lady constable, citing delay of 15 years in filing the application. The petitioner's father, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, died in 2006, and the application was submitted in 2021 after obtaining a succession certificate in 2019.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the claim was based on the delay in filing the application, which was beyond the stipulated period of limitation. The court emphasized that the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family and that the delay of 15 years did not warrant such appointment.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment based on the delay in filing the application, and whether the family dispute and succession certificate justified the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay of 15 years in filing the application did not align with the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and was in contradiction to the statutory provisions. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the conditions provided in the scheme/rule.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground due to the delay in filing the application.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing memo dated 11.10.2021 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as lady constable has been rejected on the ground that application filed by the petitioner is after delay of 15 years, which is contrary to the statutory provision as contained under letter no. 10167/(Anu) dated 01.12.2015 wherein the period of limitation for filing the application for compassionate appointment is five years.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under:
3. The father of the writ petitioner while posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police died in harness on 22.12.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that since a dispute arose regarding successor of deceased-employee as such the petitioner has to file succession case being Succession Case No. 09 of 2009 for issuance of succession certificate, which was allowed vide order dated 18th September, 2016 and thereafter, Succession Certificate was issued on 03.05.2019 only then the petitioner submitted application on 08.05.2021 before Superintendent of Police, Sareikella-Kharsawan for appointment as Lady Constable on compassionate ground, who recommended her name before Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 11.10.2021 stating that the application since has been filed beyond the period of limitation of 5 years, hence the same is time-barred.
5. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has filed application on 08.05.2021 for appointment on compassionate ground after death of his father, who died on 22.12.2006, which is admittedly filed after delay of 15 years.
6. The authority has examined her application and rejected the same as the same was filed after inordinate delay of 15 years, which is beyond the period of limitation of five years as stipulated under rule as contained in letter no. 10167/(Anu) dated 01.12.2015.
7. The said order is under challenge before this Court on the ground that the reason for filing the belated application for consideration of such claim is due to the dispute in the family for succession for which the competent court of civil jurisdiction has been approached for succession certificate which has been issued after lapse of about 10 years in the year 2019 and only thereafter the application for consideration of such claim has been made after succession certificate having been granted in favour of writ petitioner.
8. The contention has been made that before rejecting the aforesaid claim, the authority did not consider the aforesaid fact and passed the impugned order as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents-State by putting reliance upon the averments made therein has submitted that the application filed after lapse of about 14 years from the date of death of father of the petitioner which is the main reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as application for appointment on compassionate ground was to be filed within the period of five years from the date of death of deceased-employee.
11. As such submission has been made that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authority suffers from no error as such the instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading available on record as also the impugned order passed by the competent authority.
13. The legality and propriety of impugned order dated 11.10.2021 is the subject matter of instant writ petition. The writ petitioner has submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of lady constable which was rejected on the ground that the application has been filed after delay of 15 years. Purpose to assign such reason in the impugned order
Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta [(1975) 1 SCC 858 : AIR 1975 SC 1297]
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 209]
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vrs. Ashalata S. Guram reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447
Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others v. K.R. Vishwanath [(2005) 7 SCC 206]
Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [AIR 1951 Cal 193]
LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718]
Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division [AIR 1958 SC 398]
Pepsico India Holding Private Limited Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270
Sawarn Singh & Anr. Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868
State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [(1996) 5 SCC 308]
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family, and the delay in filing the applicat....
Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not a right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Long delays can lead to the rejection of compassionate appointments.
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not an absolute right, and should be granted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions, without diluting the eligibility criteria.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.