Saroj Devi vs Rajendra Institute Of Medical Science And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Abhijit Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 25.05.2010 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the establishment committee. The petitioner's husband late Ganga Ram was a sweeper in the Rajendra Medical College and Hospital (Now known as Rajendra Institute of Medical Science i.e. RIMS). Deceased Ganga Ram has died in harness on 16.12.2002 leaving behind three daughters and two sons. Three daughters of the late Ganga Ram is residing with the petitioner and two sons of the deceased residing in his ancestral house at Muzaffarpur.

It is averred in the writ petition that late Ganga Ram first married with the Shanti Devi who died on 16.05.1985 and thereafter the deceased married with this petitioner namely Saroj Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment on 24.12.2002, 28.12.2002 and 22.01.2003. The petitioner was asked by the authority-RIMS to come forward with a succession certificate so that the application of the petitioner be forwarded to the establishment committee.

Mr. Singh, appears for the RIMS by drawing the attention of this Court at Annexure-2 series submits that these are the applications for benefits and pension and also submits that in these applications there is no mentioning of compassionate appointment. He further submits that the petitioner has not applied with proper proforma along with the credentials for appointment on the compassionate ground. He further submits that it is well settled that the compassionate appointment is made to meet the sudden jerk in the family. The petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and on this ground the prayer of the petitioner is fit to be dismissed. He further submits that the succession certificate produced by the petitioner on 16.12.2009 and the application of the petitioner was forwarded on 28.04.2010 to the District Establishment cum Deputy Commissioner for consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

This matter was heard on different dates by coordinate Bench of this Court. It appears that on the matter of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment this Court directed the RIMS to disclose the dates when the application of the petitioner was received and this Court vide order dated 21st June 2017 ordered that which is as under:-

"On the earlier occasion Court passed an order regarding affidavit. An affidavit has been filed placing the entire documents and the representation filed by the petitioner.

From perusal of the affidavit, it is clear that though, in the first representation nothing has been specifically mentioned with respect to compassionate appointment but, in the second application dated 6.7.2006 filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment there is no denial to the said representation. However, there is no such prayer regarding quashing of the order passed by the respondent-authorities dated 05.05.2010 and 13.08.2010 as the matter relates to appointment of the petitioner on class-IV.

Taking a lenient view, this Court directs the learned counsel for the petitioner to file an interlocutory application for amendment in the prayer portion within a period of one week.

Mr. Ajit Kumar fairly submits that through the representation has not been annexed by the petitioner but it has come on record by way of counter-affidavit filed by the RIMS. From the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that there was a representation dated 6.7.2006.

In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has filed representation as back as on 6.7.2006 which is within time i.e. 5 years. The said application ought to have been considered by the Establishment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner in the admitted facts.

This Court after considering the amendment petition may pass an appropriate order for appointment on compassionate ground.

In view of the above submission, this Court is of the view that a chance may be given to the petitioner to file one amendment application by way of interlocutory application.

Put up this case on 6th July, 2017."

From the order dated 21.06.2017, it transpires that the petitioner has approached the RIMS on 06.07.2006 which is also apparent from the subsequent development whereby the RIMS asked the petitioner to come forward with succession certificate which was finally produced on 16.12.2009. Looking into the application annexed with the writ petition, this Court finds that the petitioner is able to sign somehow as she is an illiterate lady and she has having no knowledge of the procedure which are being followed for such purpose.

Be that as it may, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached the RIMS on 06.07.2006 which is apparent from the order dated 21.06.2017 which is within the time period prescribed for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner is an illiterate lady and it is an admitted position that the RIMS forwarded the application in the year 2010. There is latches on the part of the RIMS therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer who is facing turmoil due to sudden death of her husband.

Accordingly this Court holds that the application was filed within the time. The impugned order dated 25.05.2010 is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents authority who will pass a fresh order looking into the observations and directions made herein above.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition allowed and disposed of.