Kumari Sunita @ Sunita Kumari vs The State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J,

Heard counsel for the parties and considered counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to appoint her on class IV post on compassionate ground on account of death of her father, who died in harness on 28.6.2001.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for her appointment on compassionate ground but till date no decision has been taken in the matter.

Today a counter affidavit has been filed in Court on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground as her father was not working on regular sanctioned post of a driver and therefore, her claim has been rejected vide letter no. 4304 dated 6.9.2003 as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit.

From the tenor of Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it appears that the father of the petitioner was not duly appointed against a sanctioned post. When I asked learned counsel for the State as to whether the father of the petitioner was getting sanctioned pay-scale of jeep driver, learned counsel replied in affirmative.

A sanctioned pay-scale is given to an employee appointed against a vacant sanctioned post and thus, it presupposes that the deceased father of the petitioner was working on a sanctioned post of a jeep driver. Besides this, it appears from the materials on record that father of the petitioner served under the respondents since 1980 and he died after completing 21 years of his services. This fact also goes to show that the father of the petitioner was working on a sanctioned post as he could not have been allowed to work against unsanctioned post for more than twenty years.

For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, it is held that father of the petitioner was working of a sanctioned post of jeep driver and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her father.

Learned counsel for the State, however, tried to impress upon the Court that father of the petitioner was working in the work charged establishment and therefore, he was not a regular employee.

Annexure-B to the counter affidavit is the order passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government, of Bihar rejecting claim of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground. No reason whatsoever has been assigned in Annexure-B except that father of the petitioner was not duly appointed on the sanctioned post. There is no whisper in annexure-B that since the petitioner''s father was working under the work charged establishment, he was not a regular employee. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, this application is allowed and order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-B is set aside and the authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.