Laddan Shah, son of Smail Shah @ Shamu Vs The State of Jharkhand
Bench: DIVISION BENCH
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
951 of 2016
Hon'ble Bench
H. C. Mishra, Dr.S.N.Pathak
Advocates
Ritu Kumar, Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Vikash Kumar, Manoj Kumar Sah, Prashant Kumar Singh, Madan Prasad
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A No. 051/00257/2015, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment at the place of her sister, who died in harness, has been dismissed being premature.
3. In the O.A. filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the communication dated 19.9.2015 made to her, by the respondent No.4, as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application, whereby the petitioner was informed that her late sister had not completed two years of service and she had not nominated the petitioner as her next kin. She was, however, asked to submit the succession certificate from the competent civil authorities to enable the office to process her claim for terminal benefits of her sister as well as the compassionate appointment, if eligible.
4. The tribunal, by the impugned order, has rejected the claim of the petitioner, stating that since the petitioner had not filed the succession certificate, her application was premature and was accordingly, dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned communication made by the respondent No.4 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, was absolutely uncalled for, inasmuch as, the deceased sister of the informant, before her death had given the details of her family, which is Annexure-2 to the writ application, and available in her service records, in which, she had specifically mentioned the petitioner as her sister. It is also submitted that after the death of the sister, all the other family members mentioned in Annexure-2 have given an affidavits to the concerned authorities, showing no objection for giving the compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. Still the petitioner is being harassed for bringing the succession certificate. It is submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of the matter and has rejected the application of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, supporting the demand of succession certificate, for consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
7. Counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed in the case on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph-5 of the writ application, there is a statement made by the petitioner to the effect that after joining the organization, the deceased sister of the petitioner had submitted in the police verification, in which, the deceased sister of the petitioner had detailed the names of all the family members, which is in the record of the respondents. In reply to this statement, it is stated in paragraph-23 of the counter affidavit that it is a matter of record and hence, requires no comment. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in paragraph-7 it is stated that the case of the petitioner shall be considered, if the petitioner furnishes all the relevant documents, including the succession certificate, as required under the provision of law.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, submitted that the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, if the succession certificate is filed by her.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, we find that admittedly, there is document available before the respondents to show that the petitioner is the sister of the deceased, which fact has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit, rather it is stated that it is a matter of record. It is also apparent from the writ application that all the relatives of the deceased employee, mentioned in Annexure-2, which is the document available before the authorities, showing the petitioner to be the sister of the deceased employee, have given affidavits to the effect that they have no objection in petitioner getting the compassionate appointment.
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there was no necessity for filing any succession certificate by the petitioner and the insistence of the respondents for succession certificate is absolutely uncalled for. The stand of the respondents that the deceased employee had not nominated the petitioner as her next kin before her death, has also no legs to stand, in view of Annexure-2, which is admittedly in the record of the respondents, in which, the petitioner has been shown as the sister of the deceased employee.
11. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment on the basis of Annexure-2, as well as the affidavits filed by the other relatives of the deceased employee, without unnecessarily insisting for production of the succession certificate, and to pass an appropriate order within the period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
12. This writ application stands disposed of, with the directions as above.
