D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1189 of 2014 dated 5th August, 2016, whereby, the writ petition, preferred by this appellant, was dismissed, mainly on the ground that this appellant (original petitioner), who was unmarried at the time of death of her father and though, she was dependent and later on she married and hence, she ceased to be the dependent of her father and hence, no compassionate appointment can be given as per circular dated 01st December, 2015 and hence, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, against which the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the daughter of the deceased employee of the respondent-government, for getting compassionate appointment.
(2.) Factual matrix: This appellant (original petitioner) is the daughter of deceased employee of the respondent. Her father, namely, Anil Chandra Rajak, who was serving as a class- IV employee with the Respondent-State of Jharkhand, who expired during the course of his employment, leaving behind widow, daughter no. 1 (married) and daughter no. (2), who is the present appellant. Father of this appellant expired on 11th July, 1011 and this appellant preferred an application for compassionate appointment on 05.10.2012. This application was within the time limit. It is fairly submitted by the counsel for the appellant as well as Additional Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand that limitation to prefer such application is five years as per Clause (10) of circular dated 1st December 2015, which is at Annexure-(8) to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Moreover, this appellant was unmarried as on date of death of her father i.e. on 11th July, 2011, hence, she was dependent upon her father as on 11th July, 2011 . This appellant waited for more than one year for getting compassionate appointment. The respondents have not granted the compassionate appointment nor passed any reasoned order, rejecting her application. This appellant got married on 16th November, 2013. The writ petition has been preferred by this appellant because no reply was given by the Respondent-State on her application for compassionate appointment dated 05th October, 2012 and the said writ application has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge being WPS No. 1189 of 2014 vide order dated 5th August,2016. Now, she has got married and hence, this appellant cannot be given appointment on compassionate basis because she is now dependent upon her husband and not upon her father.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellant: i. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the father of this appellant ( original petitioner) expired on 11th July, 2011 and within the time prescribed, the application for compassionate appointment was preferred by this appellant i.e. on 5th October, 2012 and at the time of death of her father, she was unmarried and she was dependent upon her father. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by this appellant. ii. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per Government Circular dated 01st December, 2015, issued by the Respondent No. 1 ( Annexure-8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), especially, as per Clause 4(iii) is concerned, this appellant is entitled to get the compassionate appointment because as on the date of death of her father, she was dependent upon her father. iii. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there cannot be any earlier circular which discriminates the daughter and son i.e. if the son is married as on the date of death of his father, he will get compassionate appointment whereas , if the daughter is married as on the date of death of her father she will not get the compassionate appointment. Even if, such type of clauses have been incorporated in any of the earlier circular, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. iv. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if there is clause 1(c ) of the circular dated 5.10.1991, to the effect, that the married daughter will not be treated as dependent of the deceased employee, the same is discriminative in nature because when the father expires of any daughter and if she is unmarried, she is always dependent upon her father. Subsequent marriage has nothing to do with the applicability of such type of clauses. A daughter cannot afford to remain unmarried till the senses of the government is awaken. Hence, the subsequent marriage of a daughter of the deceased employee, who was dependent upon her father,when her father expires, is always entitled for compassionate appointment, even though at a later stage, such daughter is getting married. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by this appellant.;