JAGDEO TURI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 26- 2-97 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby and where under the petitioner has been refused appointment on compassionate ground and further for a direction to the respondents to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that his father was employed under the respondent No. 1 State in the Department of Extension Training Centre, Hehal, Ranchi on the post of Laboratory Assistant. The petitioner's father died on 13-4-91. After the death of his father, the petitioner immediately applied before the concerned respondent for compassionate appointment on the ground, inter alla, that there is no earning member in the family and the entire family members of the petitioner are facing hardship. The application was processed by the respondent and thereafter by order dated 26-2-97 the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has sufficient means of maintaining his livelihood. It is stated by the petitioner that he filed affidavit before the concerned respondent stating, inter alia, that there is no sufficient means to maintain the family or members of the family have any income from any sources. The petitioner also filed a detailed representation before the concerned respondent but nothing has been done.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, it is stated, inter alia, that the application for appointment on compassionate ground submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Joint Director Agriculture, Ranchi, who in turn forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for obtaining recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee. The Committee, after careful consideration, found the case of the petitioner unfit for recommendation because the financial condition of the dependants of the deceased employee was sound enough for the maintenance of the petitioner and the family members. It is stated that the Committee found that the dependants members of the deceased employee have 60 decimals of land in village Hatma, P. S. Ranchi and the annual income of the family Rs. 10,000.00 which is sufficient for maintenance of the petitioner. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner was again placed before the District Compassionate Committee in the meeting held on 23-7-97 when a petition for reconsideration of his case was filed by the petitioner. The Committee again rejected the petition on the ground that the economic condition of the dependant of the deceased Government employee is sound.