Dhiraj Kumar Dubey vs State of Jharkhand

Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Aggrieved of order dated 07.01.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.6339 of 2013, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, the present Letters Patent appeal has been filed.

Referring to order dated 04.07.2012 in W.P.(S) No.5833 of 2003, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) submits that the decision taken by the District Compassionate Committee on 31.05.2013 is patently erroneous inasmuch as, the availability of the post of additional clerk was to be ascertained on the date when the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the respondents have admitted that till 2005 the post of additional clerk was existing in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the compassionate ground.

The facts disclosed in the present proceedings reveal that the father of the petitioner was working as additional clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sahebganj and he died in harness on 13.10.2002. When the application filed by the petitioner''s mother for providing employment to the petitioner was not considered by the District Compassionate Committee, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.5833 of 2003. During the course of hearing, to a pointed query from the Court whether there is a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to letter dated 03.04.1992 of the Government of Bihar, vide annexure-4, to submit that had the petitioner been enlisted in the waiting list, he could have been employed and subsequently regularised in service as was done in the year 2005.

Letter dated 03.04.1992 discloses that in case of death in harness of additional clerks, their dependants would be placed in waiting list. Now, can such a provision be construed to mean that, had the petitioner been placed in the waiting list he would have been regularised in service subsequently, as the persons working on the post of additional clerk were subsequently regularised in the year 2005. We are of the opinion that, all that the petitioner could have expected was that had he been put in the waiting list, in case of necessity he also could have been employed. Admittedly, there is no scheme for appointment on the compassionate grounds. Ignoring the aforesaid aspect, when we read the direction issued by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No.5833 of 2003, it becomes apparent that the District Compassionate Committee was required to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, only if post of additional clerk is still available in the State of Jharkhand. The respondents have taken a stand that there is no cadre of additional clerks and after 2005 no one was employed as additional clerk, a post on which according to necessity persons were employed. The reliance by the petitioner on permanent post of clerk and temporary post of clerk for seeking appointment on compassionate ground is misconceived. The post of clerk and temporary post of clerk are altogether different from the post of additional clerk and the Writ Court has rightly held that the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a clerk either on permanent post or temporary post.

Considering the aforesaid facts we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.01.2016 passed by the Writ Court. The instant Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.