NAZMA BANO Vs. INDIAN LAC RESEARCH INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter bearing No. LR -A/133/98/10811 dated 14 -1 -98 as contained in Annexure -13 to the writ application issued under the signature of respondent No. 5, the Administrative Officer, Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi whereby the petitioners' request for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground has been rejected,

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the widow and petitioner No. 2 is the son of the late Azizur Rahman who was a permanent employee of respondent No. 1, Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi. Said Azizur Rahman after serving for 33 years, died in harness on 16 -6 -94 leaving behind his widow, two unemployed sons and one married daughter. Petitioners' case was that the family of the deceased had no source of income and, therefore, petitioner No. 1 applied to the Director, Indian Lac Research Institute on 12 -7 -94 requesting him to appoint her son, petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. She also brought to his notice that the eldest son was married and was living separately and was not giving any financial assistance to her. On the said application proper inquiry was made and the Director of the Institute, after verification, recommended the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground in Group 'C* as the application of the petitioner No. 1 was considered in the light of the instruction contained in office memo dated 9 -12 -93 issued by the Government of India. The petitioner filed several representations thereafter before the respondent concerned but nothing was done for a long time and ultimately by letter dated 25 -8 -95 issued under the signature of the Administrative Officer, petitioner No. 1 was informed that her application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

(3.) IN pursuance of the order of this Court petitioner No. 1 again filed a detailed representation before respondent No. 1, the Director of the Institute. However, the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents for a long time and, as such, she again filed another representation on 29 -12 -97. Ultimately, to her utter surprise, by another letter dated 14 -1 -98 issued under the signature of the Administrative officer, petitioner No. 1 was informed that the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground has again been rejected. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure -13 to the writ application.