- (1.) Aggrieved of order dated 06.05.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4998 of 2014, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner, who is wife of late Bidya Binod Gope.
(2.) Bidya Binod Gope was employed as Jeep Driver on 11.03.1992 under Social Welfare Department, South Chotanagpur Division, however, his services along with other persons were terminated on 13.10.1995. Bidya Binod Gope died on 14.02.2000 and a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6199 of 2003 was filed by other employees seeking quashing of order dated 13.10.1995. In the said writ petiton the appellant was also a petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to move the Director, Social Welfare for considering whether such employees can be reinstated in service without backwages, if posts are vacant. It appears that some of the employees are reinstated in service, however, in respect of the husband of the petitioner no order of reinstatement could have been passed and accordingly, the appellant submitted an application for compassionate appointment of her son, which was rejected on 15.03.2013.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by virtue of orders dated 29.12.2012 and 02.11.2013 the husband of the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service, and as such, his son is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Finding no force in the appellant's submission the learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition by observing as under : "Admittedly, husband of the petitioner was terminated on 13.10.1995 and he died on 14.09.2000. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(S) No. 6199 of 2003 directed the State to consider the case of the husband of the petitioner along with others on its merit. The case of four others were considered and they were reinstated but no decision was taken in respect of husband of the petitioner. As things stands today, admittedly, there is no order of reinstatement in respect of husband of the petitioner. The petitioner's argument that her husband be deemed to be reinstated as because there is an order of reinstatement of other persons, cannot be accepted. There had to be a specific order of reinstatement in respect of the husband of the petitioner, which is not there in this case. In my opinion, there cannot be deemed reinstatement of the husband of the petitioner.";