Ved Prakash Bhagat vs State of Jharkhand

The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent-State for his appointment on compassionate ground. He is aggrieved of the decision dated 26.12.2017 of the District Compassionate Committee by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that on the last date for submitting application for compassionate appointment, he had not attained the age of 18 years which is the minimum age for appointment in government services.

Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner's mother died in harness on 04.02.2012. At that time she was posted as Assistant Teacher in Harischandra Middle School, Pakuria, Pakur. An application seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner was submitted on 04.09.2014 which was followed by representations dated 06.04.2015 and 21.02.2016. It is pleaded that petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was forwarded by the Area Education Officer, Maheshpur on 11.10.2017 to the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Subdivisional Officer, Pakur. On this application the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 26.12.2017 has taken a decision that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.

Plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is two-fold; (i) it is the date on which a final decision on the petitioner's application was taken is the crucial date for deciding his eligibility, and (ii) the minimum age of 18 years provided under the Rules shall be reckoned from the date the employee enters into the service and not from the last date for submitting application for compassionate appointment.

To fortify the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in “Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar” reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195, “Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India & Others” reported in (1999) 6 SCC 459 and “Kaliman Bibi vs. State of Jharkhand” reported in 2013 (2) JLJR 356.

Mrs. Richa Sanchita, the learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, submits that the conditions under the scheme for compassionate appointment must be observed and any appointment on compassionate ground can only be within the four corners of the scheme. Further contention raised on behalf of the respondent-State is that the very object behind compassionate appointment is frustrated if it is offered to dependent of a deceased employee long after the death of the employee, precisely beyond five years of his death.

Rule 6 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2015 reads as under:

“vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fdlh vkf+Jr dh fu;qfDr ds fy, U;wure mez izLrkfor lsok esa izos'k ds fy, fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh eas fofgr izko/kku ds vuq:I gkxs kA”

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid Rules provide that an applicant must have attained the minimum age for appointment when he enters the service, which under the Rules is 18 years.

In “Syed Khadim Hussain” case, the applicant was aged about 9 years at the time of death of his father and his application for compassionate appointment was rejected, however, the applicant had attained the age of 18 years when his claim for compassionate appointment was finally decided.

While observing that in the matter of compassionate appointment the authorities should extend services in an effective manner so that to benefit dependents of the deceased employee, the Supreme Court had held that appointment on the ground that he has not attained the minimum age of 18 years cannot be denied.

Inspite of opportunities granted the State has failed to file counter-affidavit.

By now it is well settled that in construing a beneficial provision it is duty of the Court to interpret such provisions liberally so as to give a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning [refer: “Madan Singh Shekhawat” case].

It is the State's own scheme to extend compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee and while so, it is duty of the State not to deny benefits under the scheme for compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee on technicalities. On admitted facts, the petitioner had attained the age of 17 years 11 months and 20 days on the last permissible date when an application for compassionate appointment can be submitted. But, as on the date when a decision was taken by the District Compassionate Committee, that is, on 26.12.2017, the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years.

Facts pleaded by the petitioner in the present proceeding are similar to the facts in “Syed Khadim Hussain”.

For the present, particularly in view of the facts disclosed in the minutes of meeting of the District Compassionate Committee, I am inclined to accept the submission that decision in “Syed Khadim Hussain” is applicable in case of the petitioner. Consequently, it is held that the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 26.12.2017 denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner is not sustainable and accordingly, it is quashed. The Deputy Commissioner-respondent no. 2 shall take necessary steps for assessing suitability of the petitioner and if he is found fit issue necessary directions for his appointment on a suitable post, within two months.

The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.