Fula Kuer vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. Earlier the case was adjourned in spite of the fact that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, however counsel for the respondents was present.

The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit stating therein that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid as compensation to the petitioner as per the policy of the respondent State on account of the death of her husband, who was killed in explosion of bomb on 16th April, 2004 from the land mines. The respondents have also indicated in their counter-affidavit that her case for compassionate appointment was considered and in view of the letter dated 31st December, 2004, recommendation was made in respect of the petitioner that she will have to fulfil the qualification of reading and writing within two years from the date of appointment. However, no rejoinder to the said affidavit has been filed and learned counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to say whether the petitioner has thereafter approached the respondents and has been granted compassionate appointment. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner-may be allowed to approach the respondents for consideration of her case for compassion-ate appointment

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to issue any-writ or direction in the matter. However, it is open to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, if sustainable, otherwise on facts and law for grant of compassionate appointment. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.