SRI SUNIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-10 whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated in the light of Memo No.2685 dated 29.03.2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have wrongly applied 1991 Circular for terminating the petitioner. There was no occasion for any disclosure at the time when the petitioner's case for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground was ripe. He submits that the father of the petitioner died 19.09.1990. On the date of death there was no requirement that compassionate appointment is not available to the dependent, if husband and wife, both are in the government service and one of them have died. This restriction was introduced for the first time vide Circular of the State Government dated 05.10.1991. He submits that the rule applicable on the date of the death of the father of the petitioner was the relevant rule and subsequent change in the Rules and norms for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground cannot operate with retrospective effect to disentitle the petitioner from compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the restriction was introduced by the notification of the Personnel and Administrate Reform Department dated 05.10.1991 and prior to 05.10.1991 there was no such prohibition on compassionate appointment on the ground that the father and mother, both were in job and on death of either of the spouse the dependent is not entitled to compassionate appointment.