BUDDHESHWAR MACHHUWA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner has preferred this petition stating that his father expired on 17.9.1987 when he was in service with the respondent-State and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as Chaukidar as Class-IV employee.

(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for respondents-State who has vehemently submitted that there is no legal vested right to the petitioner for such a compassionate appointment, as the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is being frustrated by lapse of more than two decades from the date of death of lather of the petitioner and there are no such rule or regulation with the Government that when the petitioner attains the age of majority, the respondent must keep the post vacant for grant of compassion appointment. Thus, in absence of any rule., after such a long time at such a belated stage, no compassionate may be ordered by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed. This claim is being made after a period of approximately 23 years from the date of death of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any rule, regulation or governmental policy framed by the respondents whereby the petitioner can get the appointment on a compassionate ground after attaining the age of majority after such a long belated stage.