LAL MOHAN GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As it appears from the order dated 1.09.2004, the concerned authorities of the respondents were required to file a counter-affidavit to state as to why the benefits of age relaxation be not given as per the Circular contained in Annexure-5 and in terms of the decision of this Court passed in the case of Babujan Ansari v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 4 JCR 676 (Jhr).

(2.) Though, the counter-affidavit appears to have been filed on behalf of the respondents, but no specific reply or explanation appears in the counter-affidavit regarding the query made by this Court.

(3.) From the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner had applied for his compassionate appointment on the ground of his mother's service. The claim was rejected only on the ground of the petitioner having crossed the maximum stipulated age of 35 years in terms of Rule 54 of the Service Code. It appears further that the decision was taken by the State Government pursuant to which, the Circular (Annexure-5) was issued, whereby a direction was given to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the several districts to consider grant of age relaxation, under special circumstances, in respect of all those applicants who had prayed for compassionate appointment but on the date of filing such application, have crossed the upper age limit. The only condition as laid down in the Circular was that the application should have been filed within a period of limitation as stipulated by the Rule.