A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justices P. B. Banjanthri and B. PD. Singh, overturned a Single Judge’s decision that dismissed an application for compassionate appointment to the post of Constable. The dismissal was based on the grounds that the application was not filed within the stipulated time frame of five years following the employee’s death. The Division Bench clarified that the five-year period should be counted from the date the dismissal order was quashed, not from the employee’s death.
Case Background
The Appellant’s father, Satyendra Singh, served as a Constable but was dismissed from service on December 8, 2004, due to allegations of abusive behavior towards senior officers and firing two rounds in a drunken state. He passed away on December 9, 2005, six months after his dismissal.
Following his dismissal, Satyendra Singh’s wife appealed the dismissal before the D.I.G, but her appeal was dismissed on February 15, 2006. She later filed a memorial with the D.G.-cum-I.G, which was also rejected, citing that she, as the wife of the dismissed employee, had no right to file a memorial.
Despite the allegations against him, the Appellant argued before the Single Judge that the punishment imposed on his father was excessive, considering his 20 years of service. The Single Judge observed that Satyendra Singh’s wife, as his legal heir, was entitled to seek remedies. Consequently, the Court directed the D.G.-cum-I.G to consider her memorial.
On April 26, 2011, the dismissal order was set aside. Following this, the deceased Constable’s wife filed an application on October 1, 2013, seeking the compassionate appointment of her son (the Appellant) to the post of Constable.
Single Judge’s Decision
The Single Judge Bench dismissed the application, stating that it was not filed within five years of Satyendra Singh’s death (December 9, 2005) and was, therefore, time-barred. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
Division Bench Findings
The Division Bench noted several key points:
- The Appellant’s father was dismissed on December 8, 2004, and passed away on December 9, 2005. Therefore, neither the deceased’s wife nor the Appellant could have sought compassionate appointment within five years since the dismissal order remained in effect.
- The cause of action to file the application arose only after the dismissal order was quashed on April 26, 2011.
The Court criticized the Single Judge’s decision for not considering these facts. It clarified that the five-year period for seeking compassionate appointment should start from the date the dismissal order was quashed (April 26, 2011). The application filed by the Appellant on October 1, 2013, was therefore within the permissible time frame.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench ruled that the Appellant’s application was valid and allowed the appeal. It directed the concerned authority to re-examine the Appellant’s grievance and issue a detailed speaking order within three months.
This ruling emphasizes the need to consider the unique circumstances of each case while determining time limits for seeking compassionate appointments.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
