SARAHUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred for getting compassionate appointment, because of the death of the father of the petitioner, which has taken place on 13th December, 2002.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order, passed by the respondent at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, is in violation of the policy decision of the respondents, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited submitted that the bank has gone under liquidation and, therefore, it is unable to give appointment to any person and moreover, it has not appointed any person, on compassionate basis, as per the impugned order at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition. It is further submitted that a committee was constituted for compassionate appointment and the said committee has taken a decision on 22nd February, 2003 and thereby total five proposals, including the proposals regarding one Mishra and the petitioner, were taken into consideration, but, all the five proposals were not accepted, only on the ground that Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited has gone in liquidation and, therefore, unable to make payment of salary. It is also submitted that even otherwise, after the death of the father of the petitioner, enough time has lapsed. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath, 1998 2 SCC 412; Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar and ors., 2000 7 SCC 192; & Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.