High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 07 JH CK 0051

Kunal Gaurav vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 July 2007 · Citation: (2007) 4 JCR 72

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Merathia, J
RESULT
Allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 336 words

R.K. Merathia, J.—Heard the parties for final disposal.

2.

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2004, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (Annexure-8) canceling petitioner''s appointment.

3.

Petitioner''s case is that his father late Durga Paswan died in harness on 12.4.2002. Durga Paswan nominated petitioner''s mother namely Smt. Sandhya Devi (second wife) for receiving retiral benefits vide Annexure-2. There was a settlement between the petitioner''s mother and Radha Devi (first wife) (respondent No. 4) that Radha Devi will receive the retiral benefits and pension and she will have, no objection to appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. The affidavit to the said effect has been annexed as Annexure-4 series. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by order dated 4.8.2003 (Annexure-5) but on the objection of respondent No. 4, his appointment has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner is son of second wife and the second marriage was illegal, during the lifetime of first wife.

4.

Mr. Ajit Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, relied on a Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court reported in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others Vs. Ujjawal Kumar Ray and Others, .

5.

In my opinion, the present case is fully covered by the said judgment of Ujjwal Kumar Ray (supra). Even if the marriage between the petitioner''s mother and father was illegal, petitioner cannot be denied compassionate appointment. It further appears that petitioner''s mother and respondent No. 4 agreed that petitioner may get compassionate appointment and retiral benefits may be paid to the respondent No. 4. The said settlement has not been disputed by the respondents, rather it appears that the same was acted upon.

6.

In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.12.2004 is set aside and petitioner is directed to be taken back in service within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, he will not be entitled to any amount for the intervening period.

7.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. However no costs.