BIJAY KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the father of the petitioner went missing on 23.7.2001 while he was working as Forester and posted at the Forest Division, Garhwa North under the Respondent No. 3, Divisional Forest Officer, Northern Forest Division, Garhwa. Petitioner lodged a Sanha in the police station but in spite of all possible endeavour his father could not be located. Thereafter, necessary rituals relating to funeral were performed by the petitioner and his relatives. The respondents believing the death of the petitioner have also paid partial gratuity, insurance, provident fund and even started provisional pension since 24.7.2001 on 22.2.2008.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had made a claim for compassionate appointment on such ground of death of his father in-harness. The respondents however refused to entertain such application on the ground that there was no declaration that the petitioner's father had died-in-harness. Petitioner, thereafter approached the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction in Title Suit No. 23 of 2009 for declaration of death of his father on 23.7.2001. Learned Sub-Judge-I, Garhwa, vide judgment dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure-1) decreed the suit in his favour holding that the plaintiff has been able to prove that his fate late Dinanath Pradhan was missing since 23.7.2001. Thereafter, the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on 28.4.2011 vide Annexure-4 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa Northern Division on the ground that such relief cannot be accorded to the dependent of the employee who has gone missing in view of the circular of the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand contained in letter No. 409 dated 22.1.2008.

(3.) Respondents in their counter affidavit have also enclosed the said letter as Annexure-A and also the proceedings of the Departmental Compassionate Appointment Committee in which the case of the petitioner was considered and refused on the same ground. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has justified the refusal of grant of compassionate appointment on the sole ground that in the case of a Government employee gone missing there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment treating it to be case of deemed death.