MANTI DEVI (DEAD) THR. LRS. Vs STATE OF BIHAR
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: SLP(C) No.-003962-003962 / 2012
Diary number: 2935 / 2012
Advocates: AMIT PAWAN Vs
GOPAL SINGH
Page 1
[Non-Reportable] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 3962 of 2012
Manti Devi (D) through LRs. ……..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. …..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.K.SIKRI,J.
1. The admitted facts are that one Shiv Nath Mahto (hereinafter referred
to as “deceased employee”) was appointed as a Translator-cum-Proof
Reader with the respondent in the year 1971. He earned certain promotions
during his career in the year 2007, he was working as District Public
Relation Officer. His normal age of retirement/superannuation was 30th
November 2008. However, vide orders dated 29th June 2007 the State
Government took a decision to compulsorily retire him from service under
the provision of Rule 74 of Bihar Service Code. This order was made
effective from 30th June 2007 as a result whereof, he was relieved from
service w.e.f. 1st July 2007. Unfortunately, he died on 20th September 2008.
1
Page 2
2. After his death, his widow Smt. Manti Devi sent a representation
dated 24.11.2008 stating that her husband was illegally retired from service.
She also submitted that as there was no earning member in the family, her
elder son be given compassionate appointment. This representation did not
invoke any response which forced Manti Devi to file Writ Petition in the
High Court of Judicature at Patna. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed
by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 29th July 2011. Manti Devi
filed Intra Court Appeal before the Division Bench which has also been
dismissed by the High Court on 25.10.2011. Since Manti Devi also passed
away thereafter, present SLP is preferred by the children of Manti Devi and
deceased employee, challenging the judgment of the High Court.
3. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as Division
Bench discloses that even when the order of compulsory retirement was
served upon the deceased employee on the very next date, no objection was
raised by him till his demise one year and three months later. Learned
Single Judge has further observed that on 28.12.2007, the deceased
employee has himself accepted his continued illness, leading to his
compulsory retirement and it shows that such an order was passed in public
interest. It is only after his death that his widow has taken up the issue and
under the garb on challenging the order of compulsory retirement, she, in
2
Page 3
fact, wanted her elder son to be appointed on compassionate basis. In these
circumstances, the learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief to the
writ petitioner and dismissed the Writ Petition. For same reasons, the
Division Bench has also found no merit in the appeal preferred by Manti
Devi.
4. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner was candid in his
submission that the petitioner, elder son of deceased employee, wanted relief
by way of compassionate appointment which was the main purpose of
present SLP. However, such a relief cannot be granted to a person whose
father did not die in harness and as his death occurred after his compulsory
retirement. Even otherwise, on our pertinent query, we were informed that
the elder son is about 35 years of age. By no stretch of imagination such a
direction can be given to appoint him on compassionate basis.
5. This Special Leave Petition is rejected.
………………………………….J. [K.S.Radhakrishnan]
………………………………….J. [A.K.Sikri]
New Delhi, November 21, 2013
3