LAWS(JHAR)-2006-11-38

MOST.TARUNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On November 30, 2006
Most.Taruna Devi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved of order No. 78 dated 28 th July, 2006, where by her claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners husband, namely, Sahdev Prasad Mehta, has died a normal death and there is no provision for providing compassionate appointment to the legal heir of such a person. It is stated that only if the death is caused in extremists encounter, compassionate appointment can be granted.

(2.) PETITIONER is the widow of late Sahdev Prasad Mehta, who was enrolled as a Volunteer with the Home -Guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased husband of the petitioner met with an accident while on patrolling duty along with his co -members and died on 28 th January, 2006. The deceased has left the petitioner as his widow, two minor sons and two minor daughters. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, stating therein, that the deceased was the sole bread -earner of his family and after his death, the family is in miserable condition. Application of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned letter, referred to above.

(3.) ON the other hand, petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: In the case of Gayatri Devi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2004(2)J.L.J.R. 132, this Court has observed that a Home -Guard while discharging duties is a public servant and directed consideration of the dependant of such a person for compassionate appointment, where the Home -Guard was killed in extremists encounter. This judgment was followed in W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2004, decided by another Coordinate Bench of this Court on 26.01.2005. In this case the Home -Guard was killed in a road accident and this Court held that a Home -guard, killed in discharge of his duties, is entitled to be treated like a member of the regular force for the purposes of granting compassionate appointment to his dependant. What has been observed by the Court is noticed as under: