PATNA, India, July 16 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 9:

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No. 158 dated 30.01.2018 to the extent it relates to the petitioner, whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, headed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

3. The facts of the case are in narrow compass; the father of the petitioner died in harness while working as a Road Labour on 29.12.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.08.2011 he submitted application for his compassionate appointment. Subsequent thereto, some documents were asked for, which was also submitted by the petitioner on 28.08.2013. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department also sought an opinion from the Standing Counsel of the Government of Bihar and it has been opined that the application of the petitioner has been filed within time of five years. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the District Compassionate Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay in filing of the application, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and based on incorrect facts, is the thrust of the challenge.

4. Mr. Ugranath Mallik, learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that it is the admitted position that the date on which the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground, he was aged about 14 years, but the date on which the District Compassionate Committee has considered his case, he had already attained majority; moreover, the reason which has been assigned by the District Compassionate Committee is factually incorrect and on this ground alone, the same ought to be set aside.

5. Reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 195. Referring thereto he submitted that while allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the application for compassionate appointment preferred by the widow of the erstwhile employee was rejected mainly because it was not in prescribed format and thereafter the appellant's son had applied for compassionate appointment, but his application was rejected on the ground that at the time of filing of the application, he was aged around 13 years. The Court set aside the order of rejection and held the rejection of appellant's application was not justified; as at the time of rejection, appellant had attained above 18 years of age.

The rest of the document can be viewed at linkhttps://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjM5MDMjMjAxOSMxI04=-C2LM7HqLl0s=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.