WRIT PETITION 448 of 2010 on 13 September 2007

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Secretary Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. The Deputy Secretary, Home Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

5. Mst. Tasiran Nisha, Wife of Late Manjoor Hussain, R/o Sadma kala, Bokaro

6. Md. Mohammuddin Hussain, S/O Late Manjoor Hussain R/o Sadma kala, Bokaro

7. Anima Khatoon, D/o Late Manjoor Hussain R/o Kasmar, Bokaro

8. Samina Khatoon, D/o Late Manjoor Hussain R/o Karma, Kuju, Ramgarh

9. Jasina Khatoon, D/o Late Manjoor Hussain R/o Gyachanda, Jaridih, Bokaro

10. Sabina Khatoon, D/o Late Manjoor Hussain R/o Balsagra, Mandu, Hazaribag.....Respondents

…....

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

For the Petitioner

: M/s M.I.Khan, Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi: Mr. Chanchal Jain, J.C to A.A.G

For the Respondents

09/21.10.2016

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondent State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate directions commanding upon the Respondents to take appropriate steps for compassionate appointment of the petitioner and also his share in the retiral benefits of his deceased father( late Manjoor Hussain).

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the petitioner (Late Manjoor Hussain) was a driver in the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand who died in harness on 13.9.2007 leaving behind the petitioner as well as Respondent no.5 to 10 in the family. The Respondent no. 5( wife of the deceased employee) prayed for compassionate appointment by recommending the name of her younger son namely, Md. Mohammuddin Hussain i.e., Respondent no.6. The petitioner being the eldest son of the deceased employee made an objection through legal notice dated 28.12.2007 stating that the Respondent no. 5(wife of the deceased employee) has not given the actual family status before the Respondent Authorities. He also requested inter alia for his appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner also made objections before the Respondent Authorities requesting for appropriate inquiry in the matter.

4. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent no.2 and 3 reveals the fact that the guidelines for compassionate appointment issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar vide letter no. 13293 dated 5.10.1991( the same has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand ) makes it clear that the wife of the deceased employee is the first claimant.

5. In the present case the wife who is the first claimant, has filed an application before the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand dated 17.12.2007 requesting inter alia that her younger son namely Md. Mohammuddin Hussain(Respondent No.6) should be given compassionate appointment. She has also given an affidavit to the effect that her elder son i.e. the petitioner is not taking care of her properly and also resides at different place.

6. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand for appropriate instruction in this regard. Subsequently, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand was of the opinion that affidavit of the Respondent no.5 should be verified by the appropriate authority. Accordingly vide letter no.219 dated 13.5.2009(Annexure-L to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent no.2 and 3) it was informed by the Additional Collector, Bokaro to the Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand that the contents of the affidavit of Respondent no.5 appears to be true.

7. Be that as it may. It would be relevant to refer the unreported judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Goutam Prasad Vrs. Union of India & others

(C.W.J.C. No. 670 of 2016) wherein it has been held that the original application filed by the petitioner in the said case for appointment on compassionate ground has been rightly dismissed as the petitioner cannot seek any right of compassionate appointment after his younger brother stands appointed as per the request of the mother of the petitioner. It has further been held that after the death of the deceased employee, his wife has sought appointment of her younger son pointing out that petitioner is married and is not taking care of the family. The appointment on compassionate ground is to help the family of the deceased rather than becoming a source of employment. Since the petitioner is living separately and is of no help to the members of the deceased family, therefore, the younger son has been appointed. The learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court has accordingly dismissed the said writ petition filed by the petitioner Goutam Prasad.

The factual matrix of the present case being quite similar to that of the case of Goutam Prasad(supra), I have no reason to differ with the said observations made by the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court. Moreover, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Asha Devi Gupta (Smt.) & another Vrs. State of Rajasthan & others reported in (2005) 2 RLW(Raj) 1095 while considering the similar issue has also held that the provisions of the rule cannot be placed in a water tight compartment so as to deny the relief to the family. The provisions have to be construed harmoniously with human considerations. Even otherwise, the wife of the mother can nominate any of the close relatives for compassionate appointment if no other family member is in any employment. The State Government has also powers to remove difficulties in implementation of the Rules in special circumstances.

A. Mohanty/AFR

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judicial pronouncements, I see no reason to accept the prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition.

10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)