Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12876 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 1194 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 1194 of 1999)
Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar
Respondent: The State of Bihar & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12876 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 1194 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 1194 of 1999)
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 28, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. M.P. Verma, Senior Advocate, Mr. R.P. Singh, Ms. Amita Pandey and Mr. Krishnanand Pandey, Advocates with him for the Petition-er.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Government Service – Compassionate employment – Death of Government servant – Petitioner son was ten years old at the time of death – Rejection of application made by petitioner for compassionate employment – Validity. Held. When petitioner made the application, he being minor, was not eligible for such employment . There can be no reservation of a vacancy till such time the minor becomes a major after a number of years. Basis of compassionate employment is to give immediate relief to the family of deceased. Rejection of application therefore, valid and proper.
Cases Reffered:
1. Director of Education & (Secondary) Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. (JT 1998 (4) SC 155)
2. Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar (1997 (1) PLJR 626)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The petitioner was 10 years old when his mother died, while she was working as an Excise Constable. The petitioner made an application on 2.6.1988, soon after the death of his mother, seeking compassionate appointment. That was rejected on 10.12.1996, as time-barred. A fresh application was filed on 26.12.96 and that was also rejected on 21.4.1997 for the same reason. Against the said order, the petitioner moved the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24.8.99 and the said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench on 10.3.2000. Against that order this SLP has been preferred.
2. Learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar (1997 (1) PLJR 626). Learned senior Counsel points out that, it was held in that case that an applicant’s right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned senior Counsel further points out that, instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21.4.1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned Counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. (JT 1998 (4) SC 155 = 1998 (2) PLJR (SC) 181). He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts.
3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact, such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors., (supra). It is also significant to notice that, on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.88, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time, as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.
4. We, are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in Chandra Bhushan’s case.
5. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no merits in this SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed.
1. The petitioner was 10 years old when his mother died, while she was working as an Excise Constable. The petitioner made an application on 2.6.1988, soon after the death of his mother, seeking compassionate appointment. That was rejected on 10.12.1996, as time-barred. A fresh application was filed on 26.12.96 and that was also rejected on 21.4.1997 for the same reason. Against the said order, the petitioner moved the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24.8.99 and the said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench on 10.3.2000. Against that order this SLP has been preferred.
2. Learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar (1997 (1) PLJR 626). Learned senior Counsel points out that, it was held in that case that an applicant’s right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned senior Counsel further points out that, instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21.4.1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned Counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. (JT 1998 (4) SC 155 = 1998 (2) PLJR (SC) 181). He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts.
3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact, such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors., (supra). It is also significant to notice that, on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.88, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time, as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.
4. We, are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in Chandra Bhushan’s case.
5. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no merits in this SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed.
