MITHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground. It has been stated that the petitioner's husband late Basudeo Singh, who was working as Key Man in the respondent Department, died-in-harness on 7.6.2010. The petitioner was solely dependent on the earning of her husband. She has no other source of subsistence. According to the provisions and Government Circular she applied for compassionate appointment. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee considered the petitioner's application along-with the other applications of the same nature and disposed of the same by resolution dated 28.7.2012. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that in view of the Government resolution No. 1859 dated 2.9.2011, she does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of IVth grade employee.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said resolution dated 2.9.2011 is not applicable in the matter of compassionate appointment as that was with regard to the general appointment. The claim of compassionate appointment is entirely different. Under the scheme of compassionate appointment, employment is provided to a dependent member of a bereaved family to cope with the sudden hardship due to death of bread-earner. Learned counsel further submitted that at any rate, the said resolution dated 2.9.2011 is not attracted as the husband of the petitioner died on 7.6.2010 much before issuance of the said resolution. The rejection of the petitioner's claim, as such, is wholly unjustified.

(3.) Learned J.C. to G.P. IV appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though the petitioner's husband died on 7.6.2010, at the time of consideration of her claim, the said resolution dated 2.9.2011 was in existence. The claim of the petitioner was considered by the District Establishment Committee in the light of the resolution dated 2.9.2011, but her claim was rejected as she does not possess the qualification required for appointment on Class-IV post according to the said -resolution. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order.