Raghvendra Jha And ORS v. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18090 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.
Raghvendra Jha, Son of Late Santosh Jha, Resident of Mohalla- Laxmipur Saidpur, near D.A.V. Public School, P.S.- L.N.M.U. Campus, DistrictDarbhanga. 2.
Ajay Kumar Mishra, son of Dhanpati Mishra, resident of Mohalla- Lalbagh, Hassan Chowk, P.S.- Town, District- Darbhanga. 3.
Manoj Kumar, son of Late Bilash Sah, resident of Mohalla- Kadirabad, near Lal Masjid, P.S.- ...., District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University through the Vice Chancellor.
2.
Vice- Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.
3.
Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Gayanand Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 03-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the University.
The petitioners have come to this Court with a grievance that the respondents have not considered their case for appointment on compassionate ground.
Mr. Gayanand Rai, learned counsel for the University has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 27.11.2018 of this Court as well as Annexure-4 to the writ application, which indicates that the widows of the deceased employees have been offered appointment on compassionate
Patna High Court CWJC No.18090 of 2015(4) dt.03-07-2019 2/2 ground. It is not in dispute that the widows have the first say in the matter of compassionate appointment and where the widows were offered appointment on compassionate ground, the sons have no right.
Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the offer of appointment on compassionate ground has not been acted upon and the mothers of the petitioners have not been paid salary.
Such grievance of non-payment of salary from the son is not sustainable.
Considering the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that the writ application does not merit any consideration. It is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. The grievance of nonpayment of salary can be appropriately decided by appropriate authority, if raised by the person aggrieved i.e. the compassionate appointees.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U