GOVIND KUMAR RAY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Neetu Jha, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Advocate No.12 for the State.

(2.) The writ petition is filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.03.2016 bearing Memo No.194 dated 08.03.2016 of the respondent No.6, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected holding the claim as time barred. The communication impugned at Annexure 5 of the District Establishment Deputy Collector, Sitamarhi is resting on the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee which has taken such decision in its meeting held on 14.1.2016 and in so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it finds reference at item no.47 at running page 80 of the writ proceedings and enclosed at Annexure 'D' to the counter affidavit.

(3.) Facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and briefly discussed is, that the father of the petitioner Sitaram Rai died in harness while holding the post of Peon in the Office of respondent No.8 i.e. the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Sitamarhi. The death took place on 12.12.2005, which is manifest from the death certificate enclosed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, since he was a minor at that stage with his date of date of birth being 12.01.1991 that he waited until he attained majority to file an application for compassionate appointment on 10.12.2010 which was much well within the period stipulated in the circular of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 27.04.1995 which, inter-alia, prescribes 5 years limit for filing of such application. A copy of the application is enclosed at Annexure-2 to the writ petition and is accompanied with the covering letter which is dated 10.12.2010 and is addressed to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sitamarhi. The application was received on the same date i.e 10.12.2010 which is confirmed from the receiving so present thereon. The claim of the petitioner was examined by the parent department and was recommended by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sitamarhi, Sadar through letter bearing Memo No.309 dated 112.2010. The Assistant Registrar has very clearly mentioned that the death of the employee took place on 12.12.2005 and his son, the petitioner herein has filed his application for compassionate appointment on 10.12.2010 which letter of the Assistant Registrar confirms that the application was filed within the stipulated period of five years. The letter of recommendation by the Assistant Registrar bears Memo No.309 dated 112.2010 and is addressed to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. Perhaps the matter was considered within the department and the claim being found within the parameter drawn in the circular dated 27.04.1995 that the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna through his letter bearing Memo No.5450 dated 22.09.2014 forwarded the application of the petitioner together with the enclosure to the District Magistrate cumChairman, District Compassionate Committee, Sitamarhi at Annexure-4. Paragraph 2 of the letter confirms that the application was received on 10.12.2010 which is within five years of the death of the employee on 12.12.2005. The claim of the petitioner was considered by the District Compassionate Committee on 29.11.2014 and even though the parent department had expressed no doubt on the claim advanced by the petitioner rather clarified the position which is present in recommendation yet an unnecessary bogie was raised by the District Compassionate Committee treating the claim of the petitioner as delayed simply because the recommendation by the parent department was made after stipulated period of five years. Such is the remarks present at item no.51 of the proceeding dated 29.11.2014 enclosed at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. An unwarranted inquiry was directed and the Additional Collector while submitting his report before the Collector -cum- Chairman, District Compassionate Committee through letter dated 27.05.2015 has cast doubts on the filing of the application simply because there is an overwriting on the date mentioned by the petitioner in his application form at Annexure-2 which, according to the respondents, reads as '18.12.2010'. It is riding on the ghost so created that a recommendation was made for rejection of the claim as belated and mechanically, the Collector cum- Chairman, District Compassionate Committee has proceeded thereon to reject the claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on grounds that it was filed beyond the period of five years as manifest from the remarks present against his consideration at item No.47 of the proceedings dated 14.01.2016 at Annexure 'D' to the counter affidavit. The decision so taken is communicated to the petitioner through the letter impugned dated 08.02016 of the District Establishment Deputy Collector, Sitamarhi at Annexure-5 and feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.