Advocates:
['NITIN PRASAD', 'MOHUA PALIT', '', 'SHUBHA JHA', 'ARBIND KUMAR JHA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 1854 of 2013

Prakash Munda, son of late Dhaneshwar Munda, resident of village Bara Muri,

P.O. Chota Mure, P.s. Silli, District Ranchi.

…

…

Petitioner

V E R S U S

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its General Manager, Telecom, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali Main Road,

Ranchi.

2. The Divisional Engineer (Administration), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Ranchi, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, Main Road, Ranchi.

…

...

Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate

For Respondents

:

Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate

C.A.V. On 18/11/2016

Pronounced on 10/03/2017

Dr. S.N.Pathak, J.

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

2.

In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order

dated 15.07.2011 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, whereby, the claim

of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

Petitioner has further prayed for payment of all consequential benefits.

3.

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that

father of the petitioner, late Dhaneshwar Munda, had been appointed under the

respondent-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (“BSNL” for short) who died in harness on

26.08.2001. After his death, the petitioner made application for his appointment on

compassionate ground, which was duly received in the office of the respondents on

26.02.2003. As per the circular of the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of

India, as contained in memo dated 09.10.1998 & 03.12.1999, the case for

appointment on compassionate ground must be considered within a period of one

year from the date of such application. It is case of the petitioner that the

respondents-authorities kept the matter pending for a long period and after lapse of

more than eight years, the same has been rejected on frivolous ground that the net

points must be more than 55 in overall assessment, which was on the basis of letter

No. 273 dated 27.06.2007, as would be apparent from the order dated 15.07.2011,

wherein at column No. (9) the point scored (+ve) has been given, which is Dep.

Wtge-25, Pension-2, Left Svce-10, App. Wtge-0, T.B.-5, Accom.-0. Again in

column No. (10), the point scored (-ve), which is monthly income-0 and belated

request-0 and thereby, net point scored at column Nos. (9) and (10) comes to 42 and

as such, the claim has been rejected being less than qualified 55 points. Since claim

2

W.P. (S) No. 1854 of 2013

of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents-authorities, the instant writ

application has been filed by the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that BSNL is duty bound to

follow circular of the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, which

is the Nodal Department of the Central Government to formulate any rule. Since the

Department of Personnel & Training has issued OM on 03.12.1999, it is obligation

on part of the other Departments to follow the same but the same has not been

followed by the respondents-authorities. This decision has been taken by the Central

Government solely for the reasons that situation existing in the bereaved family may

improve after elapse of time but the same has not been taken care of by the

respondents-authorities and after lapse of eight years, the claim of the petitioner has

been rejected on the ground that the petitioner secure less than the minimum

qualified points. The impugned order is non-speaking order and the respondents-

authorities have not disclosed the basis on which the points at column Nos. 9 and 10

have been allotted and as such, the petitioner could not be able to find out what led

the res