High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 02 JH CK 0040

Kusum Devi vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 February 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Roshan, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition(S) No.5086 Of 2009

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

18 paragraphs · 323 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the proposal No.32 of Proceeding dated 26.05.2009,

which has been taken by District Compassionate Committee, conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and communicated on 11.06.2009

whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the post of Chawkidar has been rejected.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues raised in the instant writ application is now no more res-integra, inasmuch as, in the case

of Madhubala Sinha and analogous cases (LPA No.617 of 2017 and analogous cases) the issue has already been decided that the married daughter is

entitled for compassionate appointment.

4.

Ms. Piyushita Meha Tudu, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the issue raised in the instant writ application is fully covered by

the judgment passed in the aforesaid case; as such the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation before the concerned respondent who

shall take a final decision in the light of aforesaid judgment.

5.

In view of the limited submission advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, the instant writ application, is hereby, disposed of by

directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 within a period of two months raising her claim of compassionate

appointment along with necessary documents and aforesaid judgment. If any such representation is filed; the respondent no.2 shall pass a reasoned

order in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Madhubala Sinha (Supra).

6.

It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation and

respondent no.2 while taking fresh decision regarding compassionate appointment of this petitioner shall ignore the proposal No.32 of proceeding dated

26.05.2009.

7.

With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands disposed of.