RATNA RITA TOPNO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application petitioner is seeking direction upon the respondents to consider her appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband, Mr. Pappu, who as per the petitioner was working as Class-IV employee at Civil Courts, Simdega while he died-in-harness on 8.5.2009.

(2.) According to the petitioner the information of death of her husband was furnished to the office of the Principal District Judge, Civil Court, Simdega by the petitioner upon which a condolence meeting was held on 18.5.2009 as would appear from Annexure-1A annexed to the writ application. Petitioner has also relied upon the extracts of the application form of opening of G.P.F. account of the deceased employee in which her name is reflected as nominee of the deceased employee. Petitioner was also getting maintenance in view of the order dated 7.2.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 28 of 2005 against the deceased employee. In such circumstances, petitioner has made a claim for compassionate appointment in place of the deceased employee.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 has appeared and filed his counter affidavit. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents based upon the statements made in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the deceased employee, Md. Pappu who is said to have been working since 23.3.1981 was never confirmed as he was never regular in the service and his actual date of birth could not be determined. As per the record available in the said office i.e. transfer order No. 33 dated 30.6.1983 of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi he was shown in the service of Civil Court. In his service book also there is no such entry regarding his appointment as Class-IV employee. His service book was opened under the signature of S.D.J.M., Simdega on 2.12.1986. In the first leaf of the service book his date of birth is recorded as 10.2.1962 while in the second leaf his date of birth is recorded as 3.2.1964 and in an affidavit filed on 15.4.1988, he has stated on oath that his date of birth is 5.3.1962. In such circumstances, his services were never confirmed till his date of death by any Competent Authority. In para 7 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that the deceased employee remained in unauthorized absence from his duty for several periods as indicated therein between April 2005 to October 2006. He was also suspended twice in service due to negligence in duty. He had not applied for medical leave and remained absent without any sanctioned leave. It is further stated that on 18.5.2009 one Rabeya Khatoon and Md. Afaque @ Babloo informed the District & Sessions Judge regarding death of the Md. Pappu and filed the death certificate. Thereafter, a condolence meeting was arranged by the Civil Court Administration. In the above information letter, it was disclosed that the wife of the employee did not take care of Md. Pappu and did not bother to look after him. Further it has been stated that petitioner filed an application informing the death of the employee on 12.5.2009 whereafter she was asked to produce death certificate. Thereafter, she filed an application for compassionate appointment without giving any details of her and again filed an application on 2.7.2009 for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits of the deceased employee without any detail of the deduction or other required documents. She also filed an application for giving family pension to her on which a report was called for from the accountant. It is further submitted that thereafter one Firoza Khatoon filed an application on 22.5.2009 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Simdega claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of Md. Pappu and also claimed the death-cum-retiral benefits. Further an application was filed on 9.7.2009 with an affidavit will dated 15.4.2009 by Rebeya Khatoon, mother of Md. Pappu claiming that her son had executed a will in favour of his mother and brother regarding all the benefits of his service after his death and on that account they also claimed the death-cum-retiral benefits. In such circumstances, there were three claimants for release of death-cum-retiral benefits of the deceased employee. Thereafter, keeping in view that there are three claimants, concerned persons were asked to produce the succession certificate so that the claim can be decided at the earliest. It is further submitted that there are further outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 1,66,902/- against the deceased employee who had taken loan from the State Bank of India which is to be paid from the total death-cum-retiral benefit of the deceased employee but no one has come forward to claim the liability of the deceased employee. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that claim of the petitioner is based on wholly disputed questions of fact in which this Court should not issue any writ or direction for appointment.