MD Zamil Ahmed Vs State of Bihar & Ors, on 5th May 2016, Supreme Court of India: Case Brief – Read Judgment

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

When only male member, being close relative of the deceased available in the family of deceased, then his appointment on compassionate basis not faulted with, Court observed

Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2016
Bench: Justice J. Chelameswar; Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Case Brief: In the present matter, final judgement and order of the High court was challenged in this appeal. The High Court’s division bench has dismissed appeal filed by Appellant herein. That appeal was filed against the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court. The said Single judge held that the appellant being the brother of the deceased was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. The deceased died while on the security duty and he was working as a Constable in the District Police Force and he died leaving behind her illiterate wife and 4 minor children. As such, the said widow filed a petition before the State (Police department) and also the Appellant’s made affidavit is also filed where the Appellant stated that he would support the window and the minor children if he is given appointment. As such, the Director General of Police issued memo and appoint appellant on the post of Constable from 1991. He successfully appointed thereafter, and later after 15 years of his service a shown cause notice was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police asking him why his services not be terminated as he being brother of deceased was not included in the definition of the dependent of the deceased. Even after Appellant’s explanation to protect his service, the authority terminated the services of appellant in 2005, holing appointment was illegal and against policy. His appeal before the Inspector General of Police is also rejected and then he preferred a Writ Petition before High Court, and Single Judge thereof dismissed his petition, holding that there was a mistake committed by authorities.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Further, division bench also rejected his claim. Now this bench found that the appellant here and the wife of deceased at the time of claiming compassionate appointment did not conceal any fact and all the true family relations and conditions were disclosed by them, in the affidavit. Also, this bench found that the appellant being brother of the deceased, had undertaken to maintain the family of the deceased in the event of his securing the compassionate appointment, he stated this on affidavit. Also, there was no one in the family of the deceased to claim the said appointment except the appellant, being real younger brother. And he was the major persons with educational qualifications and also he was the only major member in the family of the deceased. Also, this bench observed that, the appellant not only stated in the affidavit but also really maintained the family of the deceased in all respects for the last over 15 years and he is continuing to do so. As such, the bench found that, with all such reasons, the state rightly granted compassionate appointment to the appellant. And now the state has no justification for digging out the appellant’s case after 15 years of his appointment. Moreover, bench also found that if in any case, such appointment is challenged, then it is challenged too late, after 15 years of appellant’s service. Thus, the action of the state for terminating the appointment of the appellant on such ground is not correct. Thus, the appeal is allowed and impugned orders were set aside.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="4" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Read the Judgment: MD Zamil Ahmed Vs State of Bihar & Ors

Leave a Reply