AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order of dismissal of C.W.J.C. No. 3542 of 2023 wherein the writ petitioner prayed for compassionate appointment in place of his father who died in harness on 11.07.2015. It would be sufficient to state the factual background of the case in following words. The original employee i.e. the father of the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed on 26.05.2014 and when the administrative order of dismissal was in force, he died on 11.07.2015. The dismissed employee challenged the order of dismissal during his lifetime by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5410 of 2015. After his death, the writ petition was continued by his legal heirs. The said writ petition was allowed by an order dated 09.04.2018 directing the appellate authority for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, the appellate authority by order dated 24.08.2018 set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after reconsidering the evidence of the independent witnesses.
The District Magistrate issued notices for fresh examination of witnesses. The said action was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 7380 of 2020 by the wife of the original writ petitioner, who, during the pendency of the proceedings died on 21.12.2020. The Writ Court by an order dated 12.03.2021 disposed off the aforesaid writ petition and inter alia held as follows:-
“15.In the view of the discussions noted above, the departmental proceeding against the deceased delinquent government servant is declared to have abated upon remand by the Appellate Authority in the light of the findings recorded, in the order of remand, as mentioned above. The order of dismissal has already been set aside by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, consequences shall follow. The petitioner’s husband will be treated to have not been ever dismissed from service and accordingly the petitioner is held to be entitled to all consequential benefits in terms of arrears of salary and death-cum-retiral dues. 16. The respondents are accordingly directed to ensure payment of salary and other dues to the petitioner/heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with law within a period of six month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is reiterated that in view of the discussion noted above, the claim of the petitioner shall be determined on the basis, as if, her deceased husband was always in service.”
Thus, the Co-ordinate Bench already held that by virtue of the order passed by the Writ Court as quoted above, the order of dismissal was set aside on 12.03.2021 with effect from 26.05.2014, as if the deceased employee was never dismissed from service. The cause of action for C.W.J.C. No. 3542 of 2023 arose only when the appellant’s prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected by the District Magistrate on 09.02.2023 holding inter alia that the original employee died in the year 2014 and the application for compassionate appointment was filed after the expiry of five years, which is the period of limitation for claiming compassionate appointment. The matter was previously heard by the Co-ordinate Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench held in paragraph no. 6 of the order dated 08.04.2026 as hereunder :-
“6.Prima facie, this Court is of the view that on 11.07.2015, the appellant was not entitled to seek compassionate appointment, as his father stood dismissed from service on that date. The right to apply accrued only upon restoration of service by virtue of the order dated 12.03.2021.”
We have also perused the record and found that the issue involved in the instant appeal is succinctly laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid paragraph.
It is not in dispute that the original employee was removed from service on 26.05.2014. He died on 11.07.2015. The order of removal was remitted back to the appellate authority and the appellate authority set aside the order of the employee on 24.08.2018. The Writ Court subsequently held that he was in service on the date of his death. However, the said decision was passed on 12.03.2021 and within one year and four months the appellant prayed for compassionate appointment.
The learned Advocate on behalf of the State respondents did not urge that in view of the series of orders passed in favour of the appellant, the appellant’s prayer for compassionate appointment ought to be considered’ but appellant’s cause of action for compassionate appointment arose from 12.03.2021. However, it is argued by him that compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment. It is no longer res-integra that compassionate appointment is a back-door appointment given to a legal heir of the deceased employee to ameliorate the plenary of the family. The object behind the compassionate appointment is to see that the family members of the deceased employee should not starve on the death of the sole bread-earner of the family. The factual circumstance of this case is that the original employee died in the year 2015. From 2015 to till date, the family members including the writ petitioner/appellant managed to run the family. Therefore, the Court ought to hold that there was no financial stringency that supports compassionate appointment of one of the family members of the deceased employee.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that we cannot assume the seat of decision making authority as to whether the compassionate appointment should be granted to the legal heir of the deceased employee or not. We are concerned only to hold as to whether the appellant has the right to pray for compassionate appointment or the said right becomes stale during the passage of time.
In view of the earlier orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 08.04.2026 and by this Court on 09.10.2026 we are absolutely ad-idem to hold that the appellant /writ petitioner had the right to file application for compassionate appointment on 14.07.2022 and the competent authority is duty bound to consider his application on merit.
In view of the above findings, the instant appeal is allowed.
The judgment and order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3542 of 2023 is set aside. The District Magistrate, Begusarai, is directed to dispose off the application filed by the appellant on merit within six weeks from the date of this order. The appellant is directed to communicate the web copy of the order for compliance to the District Magistrate, Begusarai.