D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4097 of 2015 whereby, vide order dated 17th June, 2016, the writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and hence the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix : The father of this appellant expired on 17th December, 1985 and, therefore, an application was preferred by this appellant for compassionate appointment. This appellant was given compassionate appointment as a class-III employee, directly, in the year 1988 in District Rural Development Authority, Sahibganj. Thereafter, this appellant worked peacefully for more than two decades. For the first time in the year 2011, a representation was preferred by this appellant that now she wants to be absorbed in the services of Government of Jharkhand at district level instead of District Rural Development Authority, Sahibganj. Ultimately, this prayer was not accepted by the Government and hence, the writ petition was preferred in the year 2015 being W.P.(S) No. 4097 of 2015, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17th June, 2016 and, hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
(3.) Reasons : Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) This appellant was given employment by way of compassionate appointment in the year 1988 as the father of this appellant expired on 17th December, 1985. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant (original petitioner) was appointed directly as a class-III employee. Normally, compassionate appointment is being given as class-IV employee. Class-III post is higher than class-IV post. (iii) Despite the higher post is offered, this appellant (original petitioner) was not happy and for the first time in the year 2011, a representation was made after approximately 23 years. Now, this appellant is seeking employment in the State Government instead of compassionate appointment offered as Class-III post in the year 1988 in District Rural Development Authority. (iv) At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this appellant (original petitioner) seeks transfer from District Rural Development Authority, Sahibganj to the Government of Jharkhand. (v) This contention has been rightly brushed aside by the learned Single Judge mainly for the reason that once the appointment is given in District Rural Development Authority, which is a separate body from the Government, now this appellant (original petitioner) cannot be absorbed in the Government of Jharkhand. Moreover, from the year 1988 after serving for approximately 23 long years, for the first time, representation was preferred in the year 2011 and the writ petition was preferred in the year 2015. Thus, from the year 1988, the writ petition was preferred in the year 2015 i.e. after approximately 27 years. These facts make the present case different from the facts of the case upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant which is reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. (vi) When this Court put a question upon the learned counsel for the appellant what is the date of retirement of this appellant, learned counsel is not giving any reply as he has no instruction. Thus, it appears that at the fag end of the career of this appellant, this type of plea has been raised that now she wants to be an employee of the State Government after serving 27 long years in District Rural Development Authority, District Sahibganj. Now, this appellant cannot be absorbed in the Government of Jharkhand. Even otherwise also, compassionate appointment has been given to the appellant directly as a class-III employee. The aforesaid reasons have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. ;