CHURAMANI YADAV, S/O LATE RUPLAL MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ZORAMOU, MADHUPUR, P.O. AND P.S. MADHUPUR, DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, PROJECT BUILDING, RANCHI, P.O. AND P.S. DHURWA, DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 7669 dated 14.08.2014 and Memo No. 1642 dated 14.05.2015 issued by the under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, is that the petitioner is the son of Late Ruplal Mahto. Ruplal Mahto died in harness on 27.10.2009. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, within time i.e. 31.08.2010. The case of the petitioner was rejected firstly on 14.08.2014, on the ground that he do not possess requisite qualification to be appointed by the government. It is pertinent to mention here, that at that time, he was non-matriculate. The petitioner, thereafter, completed his studies and did matriculation from Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar and became matriculate in March, 2015. He again applied for grant of compassionate appointment and the said application was rejected on 14.05.2015 due to the reason that the affiliation of the school namely, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar was cancelled by the Government on 26.04.2014. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure-1) and 14.05.2015 (Annexure-3) by which his claim for compassionate appointment stands rejected.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders are absolutely bad, and the circular issued in the year 2011, by the Govt. of Jharkhand is not applicable in the case of petitioner, because the petitioner had applied for the compassionate appointment in the year, 2009 i.e. after the death of his father on 27.10.2009. He submits that the Circular of the year 2011 cannot be applied retrospectively. He further relies on the judgment passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, as reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 , wherein it has been held that the circular which is prevalent, at the time of death of an employee would be applicable and subsequent circulars cannot be taken into account. He further submits that since the cause of action arose at the time of death of the employee, the circular which was prevalent at that point of time will have to be made applicable. He lastly submits that the circular prior to 2011 should be made applicable to consider the case of the petitioner.