IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that compassionate appointment claims must adhere to the rules in effect at the time of application, and that the presumption of civil death does not negate prior dismissals or alter eligibility criteria.]

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

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

(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the concerned respondent by quashing the order no. 74/2010 dated 19/05/2010 passed by the concerned Respondent no. 3 against the petitioner husband who was admittedly missing since 16/04/2004.

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the concerned respondent no. 3 by quashing the order no. 35/2023 dated 01.02.2023 issued under the pen and signature of Respondent no. 3 which is illegal arbitrary and non-sustainable in the eyes of law.

(c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the concerned respondent no. 3 to give entire service benefits (death-cum-retiral benefit) of the petitioner’s husband including family pension, leave encashment, gratuity, provident fund, insurance etc. along with the statutory interest over the said amount.

(d) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the concerned respondent to take all required steps enabling this petitioner to be appointed in accordingly on compassionate ground, her husband late Ramesh Mehtar who has been declared as civil death by the competent civil court on 23.02.2020 (Annexure-4).”

Arguments of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order as contained in memo no. 301 dated 01.02.2023 being Order no. 35 of 2023 has submitted that the claim of compassionate appointment has been rejected inter alia on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification for appointment in class-IV post in as much as the petitioner is a non-matric and for that purpose a reference has been made to paragraph 9 (c) of letter no. 10167 dated 01.12.2015 of Department of Personal, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that the reference to aforesaid Letter no. 01.12.2015 is not in accordance with law in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner was missing since 16.04.2004 and his civil death was declared by virtue of judgment passed in Original Title Suit No. 54 of 2018 dated 01.04.2020 and the date of death has been declared to be w.e.f. 16.04.2004 and therefore the law as it prevailed on 16.04.2004 should be taken into consideration for considering the claim of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

5. He has further submitted that as per the then applicable scheme for compassionate appointment there was no such requirement of minimum qualification of matric and therefore the order refusing compassionate appointment to the petitioner calls for interference.

6. He has further submitted that application for compassionate appointment was made within time in as much as the date of declaration of civil death was vide judgment passed in Title Suit on 01.04.2020 and the application was filed before the Civil Court, Dumka on 07.02.2020.

7. The learned counsel has also referred to order dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3581 of 2022 and has submitted that writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dumka to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and also for release of the post retiral cum death benefits of the husband of the petitioner in favour of the legal heirs and also with a direction that the prayer for compassionate appointment will be considered within the said period and reasoned order was to be passed. He submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 3581 of 2022 all the death cum retiral benefits has been paid to the petitioner but the claim for compassionate has been declined by the impugned order dated 01.02.2023.

8. Learned counsel has referred to the following judgments: -

(i) (2022) 10 SCC 696 (Delhi Jal Board vs. Nirmala Devi)

(ii) (2015) 7 SCC 412 (Canara Bank and Another vs. M.