Dhiraj Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9294 of 2016 ====================================================== Dhiraj Kumar Jha S/o late Daya Nand Jha Resident of Village- Champapur , P.S Paligaon, District Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Irrigation Building , Patna.

3. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Irrigation Building, PaTNA

4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

5. The Deputy Collector Establishment , Saran at Chapra. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bishnu Kant Dubey Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Nagendra Pd. Yadav, SC 23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-01-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

Rejection of petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground by meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 25.2.2016 is impugned in the instant writ petition. The order of rejection is based on the reason that father of the petitioner died in harness on 5.6.2008 while working in Special Land Acquisition Office under Gandak project at Chapra, however the petitioner had submitted his application on 24.1.2014.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned are incorrect. In fact, within a year from death of his father the petitioner had submitted his application on 25.07.2009 for consideration of his appointment on compassionate basis wherein he submitted his educational qualification of being

Patna High Court CWJC No.9294 of 2016(3) dt.23-01-2019 2/2 Standard VIII pass.

Since the admitted position is that the petitioner being qualified for consideration had made his application within due time as per averments made in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the reasons assigned for rejecting his claim as being time barred are clearly unsustainable. Rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on 25.2.2016 is therefore quashed. The authority namely respondent No. 4 is directed to consider petitioner's claim without raising objection of the same being time barred and taking into consideration his earlier application dated 25.7.2009. This Court would expect that since the claim is of compassionate appointment, the consideration should be without any further unnecessary delay and if there is no other impediment his consideration should be done in the next meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U