Jharkhand High Court: Taking note of the long-standing claim of the aggrieved petitioner-respondent arising out of repeated rejection of her application for compassionate appointment on the ground of alleged ineligibility and non-recognition of her educational certificate, the Division Bench of M.S. Sonak, CJ., Rajesh Shankar, J., upheld the judgment by the Single Judge Bench directing the appellants to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.
Background
The case arose when the husband of the petitioner-respondent died in harness on 8 December 2011 while working at Jharkhand Government Press in the capacity of “Pratilipidhar”. The sudden financial crisis due to death of the breadwinner left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The petitioner-respondent applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 6 July 2012. However, her claim was rejected by the Central Compassionate Committee on the ground that she was non-matriculate. The petitioner-respondent again applied for the same with the provisional certificate of passing “Praveshika” examination (equivalent to Matriculation) issued in 2013 from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, which again got rejected due to the difference on the date of birth in comparison to her admit card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in 1996.
The petitioner-respondent again passed Praveshika examination from the same institute and applied for the same claim along with the passing certificate dated 21 March 2014 wherein her date of birth was consistent with the disputed document raised earlier by the appellants, however the same was again rejected. Subsequently, the date of birth mentioned in her provisional certificate issued with respect to the Praveshika examination, 2012 got verified and corrected by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. The petitioner-respondent applied for compassionate appointment again in 2020. It still got rejected stating that she was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground as the degrees/certificates issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar were derecognised w.e.f. 26 June 2014 and no appointment could be made based on any degree/certificate issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar.
The Single Judge directed the appellant to consider the claim of the petitioner-respondent for compassionate appointment by putting reliance to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed on 7 January 2025, which held the degree issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar valid up to 26 February 2015 and that the certificate of the petitioner was prior to the said date.
The appellants present case was raised in the court of appeals through letters patent appeal against the order dated 7 January 2025 on the grounds of delay and latches as the order of rejection dated 15 June 2020 was challenged by the petitioner after a gap of four years without assigning any reason for such delay. It was also argued that since petitioner herself is a family pensioner to the family of the deceased employee on account of his death.
Analysis
The Court held that on bare perusal of the record it is evident that the first application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the petitioner-respondent on 6 July 2012, i.e. within one year from the date of death of her husband and thereafter she repeatedly made representations/applications for grant of the same, however her request was turned down by the appellants, initially on the ground that she was non-matric and thereafter on the ground of dispute with respect to her date of birth recorded in the provisional certificate of “Praveshika” examination issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. The date of birth of the petitioner-respondent was subsequently rectified in her provisional certificate. Thus, the petitioner-respondent had not committed any delay in raising claim of compassionate appointment.
The Court was of the view that since the claim of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner-respondent was rejected by an order dated 15 June 2020 by taking a ground that the degree issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar could not be treated as recognised even if the same was issued prior to 26 June 2014, the appellants cannot be allowed to raise a completely new ground to justify their action.
“An order which is bad in the beginning, cannot be validated by any additional ground brought out later. The appellants cannot be allowed to raise a completely new ground to justify their action.”
The Court observed that the purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death and to alleviate the distress of the family.
The Court after perusing the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712, that where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance held that the facts and circumstance of the present case is quite different from the case cited by the appellants and as such the same is not applicable in the present case.
Decision
The Court for the reasons as aforesaid, upheld the order by the Single Judge Bench directing the appellants to consider the claim of the petitioner-respondent for compassionate appointment and dismissed the appeal as it did not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 7 January 2025.
[State of Jharkhand v. Kanchan Devi, L.P.A. No. 605 of 2025, decided on 2-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajesh Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Indranil Bhaduri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocates