9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of those persons who had been killed in violence after the date of formation of the State of Jharkhand, i.e., dated 15.10.2000. In the light of the aforementioned resolution, the representation of the respondent was rejected in the meeting of the District Compassion Committee held on 5.4.2005 - HELD THAT:- A circular letter providing for appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of a government servant cannot be extended in case of the dependents of the deceased who was not a government servant. A public employment must be offered to a person who is entitled therefor. All recruitments subject to just exceptions must be made in terms of the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A circular letter issued by the State cannot be issued de hors the constitutional scheme of making offer of public appointment. [See Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand ors.[ 2008 (11) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT] and State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh Ors. [ 2009 (3) TMI 1064 - SUPREME COURT] . Moreover, a benevolent circular, it is well known, cannot be extended to a case which was not contemplated by the circular itself. Furthermore, in the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Bihar keeping in view a large number of casualties which have been taking place at the hands of naxalties and/or extremists took a policy decision to grant monetary compensation to the victims of the incidents of terrorist/virulent/communal confrontations/violence relating to the Election/Joint murders by way of ex-gratia payment. The said decision was taken keeping in view a judgment of the High Court of Patna relating to grant of ex-gratia payment to the dependents of the persons/injured in the terrorist incidents which had taken place at Arbal Police Station in the District of Gaya and further in view of the fact that similar incidents had taken place within Madanpur Police Station Baghoura and Dalelchuk villages of District Aurangabad in terms whereof in case of death, a sum of ₹ 20,000/- was to be paid to the dependents of each deceased and in case of permanent disability a sum of ₹ 5,000/-, and in case of serious injury ₹ 500/- to ₹ 1000/- was to be paid. 4. No ex-gratia payment was to be made in favour of the persons who were terrorist/virulent or listed criminal. Monetory compensation was also proposed in the case of destruction or damage to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminals. In the said circular, there exists no provision for providing appointment to the dependants of the deceased persons in the government service on the compassionate grounds." Paragraph 7 of the said policy decision reads as under: "The amount as required for the payment in the aforesaid heads would be made available by the State Government from time to time. The allocation of the funds would be done under the Budget Head 2235 as previously. For making available the relief with regard to the terrorist/virulent/communal confrontation/violence relating to the elections/massacre and violence incident of any other kind Nodal Department of Home (Special) would be available, from where all the guiding principles on the policy matter would be issued and the proceedings for providing relief work and government service would be monitored." 6. Respondent herein being son of late Duli Sahu filed a representation for his appointment on compassionate ground on or about 5.11.2000. The same was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla by an order dated 25.1.2003 opining that there was no provision for employment on compassionate ground for a son of the deceased in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Administrative Reforms Department's Memo No.3/C-2-2067/90 Ka. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991. In the matter of compassionate appointment, on the death of a person, killed by terrorist/extremist or during communal violence or during election violence etc., the definition of "dependent" and other things of general compassionate appointment are to be followed; the period of limitation will be the same i.e. five years from the date of death and their cases are also to be considered through the Compassionate Appointment Committeee." 8. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit: i. The High Court committed a serious error of law insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the circular letters issued by State of Jharkhand could not have been given a retrospective application in the matter of grant of appointment on compassionate ground. ii. The scheme for appointment on compassionate ground having been made only for the government servants, the same could not have been applied in cases of dependents of the deceased who were not government servants. 9. The scheme for grant of monetory compensation to the dependent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A circular letter issued by the State cannot be issued de hors the constitutional scheme of making offer of public appointment. [See Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & ors. [(2008) 10 SCC 1 para 52]; State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCALE 282 para 19]; and Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri & Ors. [2009 (4) SCC 645]. 12. Moreover, a benevolent circular, it is well known, cannot be extended to a case which was not contemplated by the circular itself. In Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur vs. Ramanuja Match Industries [AIR 1985 SC 278], this Court held: "...We do not doubt that beneficial legislations should have liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own there is no warrant for the Court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme." In Deepal Girishbhai Soni & ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda [(2004) 5 SCC 385], it was opined : &qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
