Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.@mdashIn this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 20/23.12.2006 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the prayer for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected. The petitioner further prayed for direction to the respondents to provide appointment to him on compassionate ground.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner''s father, who was working as Mazdoor under the respondent No. 1, died in harness on 13.6.2004. After death of his father the petitioner, being the dependant son of the worker Late Pachan Das, applied for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rule of the respondents. He also annexed an affidavit sworn by the other dependant(s) giving their no objection and other required papers. But by order dated 20/23.12.2006, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ application, the respondents have refused to consider his application on the ground that his name was entered in the service record of the subsequent stage and that entry is not valid. Against the said refusal the petitioner filed an appeal before the Department, but the same was not heard. The petitioner thereafter filed this writ application.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and contested the petitioner''s claim on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as his name was subsequently entered in the service record in different writing. The name furnished in the service record is also not correctly tallying with the name of the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason assigned for refusing the petitioner''s claim is wholly frivolous. A vague and unspecific ground has been taken for denying the petitioner''s right that his name was entered subsequently. There is no description as to in which record that entry is made and what is wrong in it. Learned Counsel submitted that an explanation has been furnished in the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner''s name is not tallying with the name entered in the service record and that the entry is in a different ink. That, subsequent explanation by way of affidavit cannot be accepted.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that though the specific reason has not been mentioned for not entering the petitioner''s name in the record, the same has not been accepted valid for several reasons.
6. In course of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation that the entry was made fraudulently by the petitioner or his late father. The entry is there in the record of the respondents. If, there was any discrepancy in the entry, the petitioners father would have been informed and given opportunity to explain. I find substance in the said submission.
7. It is well settled that before denying any valuable right, reason must be assigned in the order itself. Subsequent explanation by way of affidavit is not acceptable in law. From the impugned order, contained in Annexure 4 of the writ application, I find that no speaking reason has been assigned and no specific ground has been mentioned for rejecting the petitioner''s claim.
8. It is also not clear from the impugned order as to entry of which record is not tallying with the petitioner''s name and why it was treated as invalid.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot sustain and the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner''s application and pass a fresh order in accordance with law recording clear and speaking reasons within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the objection of the respondents is not supported by any rule and the provisions of law and if the petitioner is found entitled for the compassionate appointment the respondents shall pass an appropriate order to that regard within a period of one month thereafter. If any legal impediment is found in accepting the petitioner''s request, the same shall be specifically mentioned in the order and communicated to the petitioner in writing within the said period.
10. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
