RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the State Government attached to the Industries Department of the Government. He was deputed to a Corporation. He died in harness on 1.4.1987, while on deputation. In order to support the family of the deceased employee, the Corporation provided an ad hoc appointment to the petitioner who happens to be the son of the deceased employee. On 17th May, 1989, the petitioner represented to the Corporation that he should be given a permanent appointment and not an ad hoc appointment. At the time when the petitioner was given an ad hoc appointment he was not eligible to have a Government employment for he was then a minor. On 17th May, 1989, he made a representation for a permanent appointment as by then he had become a major. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners father was a government employee and was not an employee of the Corporation, the petitioner could put forward the claim for compassionate appointment to the Government and not to the Corporation. Admittedly, no claim was put forward by the petitioner before the Government for appointing him on compassionate ground. The Corporation also did not inform the petitioner that the petitioner should approach the Government instead of the Corporation. When the petitioner was not given appointment, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition. While disposing of the said writ petition, the Court directed the petitioner to make an appropriate representation with a direction upon the respondents in that writ petition to decide that representation in accordance with law. In terms thereof, for the first time, a representation was made by the petitioner to the Government and the Government forwarded that representation to the Corporation saying that the Corporation must take a decision on the basis of the said representation. Thereafter nothing happened and hence the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner did not file an application for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, but even if the representation dated 17th may, 1989 is treated to be an application to that effect, the same was not filed within time in terms of the then policy as at that time the application for compassionate appointment was required to be made within two years from the date of the death. The fact remain that on 25th May, 1989, the Government altered the policy of filing of an application within two years. This policy was altered as it appears from the Government circular dated 25th May, 1989 that the Bihar State Non Gazetted Employees Federation and the Teachers/ employee Officers Co -ordination Committee demanded for extension of the period of making application for compassionate appointment from two years to five years and the Government by its policy dated 25th May, 1989 expressly stated that there will be no time limit for making such application. From the Government policy dated 25th May 1989, it is also evident that this alteration in the policy was effected in view of the agreement reached by the Government with the Non -Gazetted Employees Federation and the Teachers/Employees Officers, Coordination Committee on 19th November, 1988. and 20th November, 1988. in such circumstances for all practical purposes, the Government Policy dated 25th May, 1989 should be deemed to be in force from 19th November, 1988 i.e. when by an agreement the Government represented that it would extend the time for making application for compassionate appointment from two years to five years. In such circumstances, the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment made on 17th May, 1989 was well within time. It is true that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to make an application to the Government seeking compassionate appointment and in fact no such application was made by the petitioner but the fact remains that the application made by the petitioner on 17th May, 1989 though was made to the Corporation but the same was intended to be forwarded to the Government through the instrumentality of the Corporation. At that stage, it was obligatory on the part of the Corporation, an agency of the Government either to forward the application to the Government or to inform the petitioner that the petitioner himself is required to approach the Government directly. None of that took place. In such circumstances, it would not be permissible for the Government not to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.