JASO DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 was killed in an operation where an attack was made by certain criminals to foot the arms and ammunition. In other words, late Ram Nandan Prasad who happened to be a homeguard laid down his life on duty in the said incident. FIR was lodged and even chargesheet came to be submitted, reading of which would show that it was a rather serious incident where many a persons came to be injured and even lost their life.

(2.) The sudden turn of events in the family naturally left the wife and the minor children to rue their fate and they were totally clueless due to sudden development of the said kind. It is evident from perusal of Anneuxre-3 that the deceased had left behind his wife of 40 years of age and four minor children of which petitioner No.2 has just about come off age. The Court can well appreciate that the section of society to which the petitioners belong, cannot be expected to know all the rules and regulations and the entitlement, which they can claim from the respondents. Some good soul must have therefore advised the widow to file a claim for her appointment on compassionate ground and an application was made by her on 30th May, 2010. The respondent authorities rejected her claim on the ground that she did not have the requisite minimum educational qualification of having passed 8th standard. The rejection order is Annexure-10 dated 21.9.2010. When this order was served and communicated to petitioner No.1, date not known, on 30th December, 2010 she filed yet another application before the D.G. (Homeguard) making a prayer that compassionate appointment ought to be now offered to the eldest son who not only has requisite minimum qualification but has also gained majority. This application of petitioner No.1 was rejected vide order dated 15.2.2011 contained in Annexure-12.

(3.) It is a cryptic order which indicates that since the application for compassionate appointment has been made after five years, such a claim cannot be entertained by the respondents. From the facts which have been noted above by this Court one thing is evident that the deceased employee lost his life in the service of the State. He was an ordinary constable of homeguard who did not have much of legacy to leave behind but many a liabilities in terms of the progenies who are claimants before the Court. Though time frame of five years have been laid down in the policy to ensure that stale kind of claims are not raised or made before the respondents, but keeping the totality of the situation when the rejection of the claim of the wife was made and the request for appointment of the second petitioner, the eldest son, it cannot be said that petitioners have really been negligent in approaching the respondents. If the respondents had taken a quick decision with regard to the first application of the wife then may be the clock would not have just about ticked away and the so called plea of time bar would not have intervened, coming the way of the claim of the petitioners.