AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for quashing the order as contained in letter No.1005 dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Director, Employment and Training, Jharkhand Ranchi by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been arbitrarily and illegally rejected. Further the petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that his father died in harness.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition is that the father of the present petitioner was posted and working as fourth grade employee in the Industrial Training Institute, Sahibganj and was reported missing since 22.11.2000. The information related to the father of the petitioner, who is missing since 22.11.2000 was also given to the Police Station and thereafter on 20.08.2005 the police submitted its report that despite all efforts, it could not trace Prahlad Bahadur Singh i.e. father of the petitioner. Further it is stated that after a report was submitted by the police, the mother of the petitioner namely Shanti Devi had approached the respondent-authorities for the release of the post retiral benefits and also a representation was made for grant of compassionate appointment to the present petitioner on 18.11.2006. One letter No.554 dated 06.11.2009 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj to the Principal, Industrial Training Institute stating therein that there is no provision to provide compassionate appointment to the family member of the employee on account of deemed death. The claim of the petitioner and his mother related to the post retiral dues was decided by the respondents in 2010 and the payments were also made after repeated representations but no decision was taken by the respondent-authorities on the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioner had preferred writ petition in this Honourable Court by way of filing W.P. (S)No.2503/2013 and vide order dated 24.10.2013 the Honourable Court had directed respondent No.2- Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training Department to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by condoning the delay and to decide the claim of petitioner on merits which is quoted hereunder:- "I further find that a learned Judge of this Court taking note of the above referred orders, has found the stand taken by the respondents in the said case not justified when a distinction was sought to be made between deemed death and natural death of an employee for rejecting the claim of the dependent of the employee for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner no.1 namely Prahlad Bahadur Singh was reported missing since 22.11.2000 and an information was given to the police. On 20.08.2005, the police submitted a report that the said Prahlad Bahadur Singh is not traceable. The retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner no.1 has been paid by the respondents however, on 18.11.2006 when a representation was made for grant of appointment to the petitioner No.2, the claim of the petitioners was not decided by the respondents. In the present proceeding, a plea has been raised that there is no provision for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to be dependents of the persons, who are not traceable. A counter-affidavit has been filed on 08.07.2013 in which it has been admitted that the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner no.1 have been granted in the year, 2010 itself, I am of the considered opinion that once the claim for grant of the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner no.1 has been accepted by the respondents, it is not open to the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner no.2 for his appointment on compassionate appointment. I find support from the order passed in 'Bijay Kumar Pradhan' (Supra) where under the rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground by drawing a distinction between deemed death and the natural death of an employee has been found not justified. The present is an identical case." "In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent no.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner no.2 for his appointment on compassionate ground. It is made clear that the delay which has occurred during this period would not be taken into account and the claim of the petitioner no.2 would be decided on merits."

(3.) On 30.01.2014 one letter was sent from the Office of Director, Employment and Training, Jharkhand bearing No.128 to the mother of the petitioner stating therein that no representation has been received by the Department for grant of compassionate appointment and hence it was requested to make a fresh representation with relevant documents for taking appropriate action for grant of compassionate appointment.