MALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2007-9-35
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on September 05,2007

MALA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after the death of her husband late Dilip Kumar Yadav in harness on 4.10.2002, leaving behind the petitioner (widow) and two minor children, while he was posted as typist under Deoghar Collectorate in the office of Block Development Officer, Sarwan.
(2.) THE District Compassionate Appointment Committee, after due verification and enquiry, approved the petitioner's appointment on Class -IV post along with others in the light of the decision taken in the meeting held on 24.6.2003. The petitioner was given appointment on Class - IV post by letter being Memo No. 328 dated 16.8.2003. The petitioner, pursuant, to the said appointment letter, joined the post on 19.8.2003 under the Deoghar Collectorate. After sometime, she was transferred to the office of Block Development Officer, Deoghar by order dated 8.12.2003. While working there, she was served with a letter dated 30.11.2005, whereby she was stopped from attending her work and rendering the duties and her salary was also stopped. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 261 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.5.2006, directing the respondents to pay the current salary and also to release the arrears of salary. However, liberty was given to the respondents to hold an enquiry, if so required. The respondents, in purported compliance of the order of this Court, issued a memo dated 4.8.2006 directing the petitioner to appear on 7.8.2006 and present her case and to give reason as to why she be not terminated from the service.
(3.) THE petitioner appeared on the date fixed. It has been alleged" by the petitioner that no enquiry was held on that date; rather she was asked to put signature for the purpose of payment of current and arrears of salary on a plain paper. Subsequently, the petitioner was surprised to receive notice on 11.9.2006, whereby she was asked to show cause as to why she be not removed from service on the basis of her written admission on 7.8.2006 that her husband was not a regular employee.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.