BABITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to take appropriate action regarding appointment of petitioner no.1 on the basis of compassionate ground and further prayer has been made for quashing letter dated 02.03.2012 and also for quashing notification dated 05.10.1991 on the basis of which, the application preferred by petitioner no. 2 for employment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that Late Taneshwar Mahto, who was father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2, while serving in Minor Irrigation Department, Deoghar as Pump Chalak died in harness on 003.2010 leaving behind his wife and sole married daughter. It has been averred that since the wife of the deceased had crossed the age of 50 years, petitioner no. 1 submitted an application annexing all relevant documents for compassionate appointment, on 15.02012 but the same was denied stating therein that since petitioner no. 1 is married one she cannot be appointed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner no. 1 married to one Anoj Kumar Rao, who left his parental house and is living in in-laws's house as a son and adopted as a Ghardamad and furthermore, the husband of petitioner no. 1 is unemployed at present also. It has further been submitted that since petitioner no. 2 had crossed the age of 50 years and is fully dependent on them and no other male member is there to look after the wife of the deceased, in such circumstances, petitioner no. 1 should be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the basic object and purport of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of employees, who dies in harness, is to overcome the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income. And by a notification, such basic purport of granting compassionate appointment cannot be swept away by the respondents and while considering the application of the petitioners for grant of employment to petitioner no. 1 did not consider these basic intent and purport of grant of compassionate appointment, hence, notification dated 05.10.1991 is liable to quashed and set aside.