IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments must be applied for within five years of the government servant's death; delays undermine the purpose of such appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the decision of the District Level Compassionate Committee, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa taken in its meeting held on 09.11.2016, which was communicated to the mother of the petitioner by the Establishment Deputy Collector, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide letter as contained in Memo No. 598(8)/Estab. dated 05.07.2017, informing that the petitioner’s candidature for compassionate appointment was rejected by the said Committee, treating the petitioner’s application as time barred, as the same was not submitted by him within 5 years of death of his father (deceased government servant). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Ramdas Hansda worked as forest guard at Ram Chandrapur Forest Beat Area and he died in harness on 19.03.1999. After the death of his father, the petitioner’s mother, namely, Salma Hansda submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground before the Divisional Forest Officer, Singhbhum Afforestation Division, Chaibasa on 13.06.2000, but no decision was taken on the said application. Thereafter, on attaining majority, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the same was rejected in the meeting of the District Compassionate Committee held on 09.11.2016 and the said decision was communicated to the mother of the petitioner by the Establishment Deputy Collector, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide Memo No. 598(8)/Estab. dated 05.07.2017 mentioning that the said application was time barred, as the same was ought to have been filed within five years from the date of death of the government servant.

3. It is further submitted that due to latches on the part of the respondent authorities, the appointment on compassionate ground was not given to the petitioner’s mother and now his mother has attained the age of 62 years. As such, she represented the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa with a copy to the Divisional Forest officer, Chaibasa Forest Division requesting to provide appointment to her son (the petitioner herein) on compassionate ground in place of his father, who died in harness on 19.03.1999, but till date no decision has been taken on the same. The period of five years for filing an application for appointment on compassionate ground needs to be relaxed, since no decision was taken on the application of the petitioner’s mother due to inaction on the part of the respondent authorities.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no application for appointment on compassionate ground was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa from the office of the Divisional Forest officer, Singhbhum Afforestation Division, Chaibasa, hence there was no question of taking any action on the application of the widow of the deceased-employee (mother of the petitioner). The death of government servant was reported to be on 19.03.1999 and the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground on 22.09.2016 i.e. after lapse of more than 17 years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

5. It is also submitted that as per Clause-10 of letter no.10167 dated 01.12.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, the application for appointment on compassionate ground should be submitted within five years from the date of death of government servant. Hence the District Level Compassionate Committee rejected the belated application of the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner