Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7125 of 2006 --- Babita Tandi --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director & others --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, Advocate For the LIC: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate --- I.A. No. 5457/2013 --- 07/ 13.08.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The prayer in the writ application preferred on behalf of the lady petitioner was to appoint her on compassionate grounds for the reason that her husband is not traceable since 10th of May 1989. At the time of filing of the writ application in December 2006, the petitioner claimed herself to be aged about 30 years.
3. The petitioner had preferred a Title Suit No. 132/98 before the Court of 2nd Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur for a declaration / decree of presumption of death of her husband Safed Lali Tandi who is said to have been not heard after 08th of May 1989. In the judgment which was delivered on 23rd March 2005, the learned Trial Court rendered the finding and made a declaration that there is presumption that Safed Lali Tandi, the missing husband of the petitioner Babita Tandi, is no more alive and is now dead since after completion of seven years of his missing from 08th of May 1989.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that after coming to know of the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 01st of June 1990, she made an application under the Right to Information Act under which, communication has been issued which is annexed as Annexure-6 series which indicates that Safed Lali Tandi was removed from service with effect from 01st of June 1990 vide order dated 30th May 1990. Accordingly, the petitioner had sought to impugn the order of removal of his husband from service given effect from 01st of June 1990, which according to her, has been done in violation of principles of natural justice and in absence of her husband. The petitioner had also sought for a direction upon the respondent Corporation to produce the entire records with respect to order of departmental inquiry against her husband which led to his removal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore sought to incorporate the proposed amendment by way of the instant I.A. preferred in the present writ application.
6. Counsel for the respondent Corporation, in response, submits that in the Title Suit No. 132/98, the very fact that the petitioner's husband was removed from service was known to the plaintiff / petitioner, as would appear from the discussion made in the said judgment dated 23rd March 2005. However, at the time of filing of the writ application also, the petitioner never ventured to seek quashing of any order of removal of her husband from service effected from 01st of June 1990. He further submits that in the counter affidavit itself which was filed in the present writ application as early as on 20 th August 2007, this fact was once again brought on record and the relevant orders of his removal dated 30th May 1990 or show-cause notice issued prior to that, were annexed as Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit. Still, the petitioner chose to sit over the matter and now in the year 2013, has sought to challenge the said order of removal of her husband passed on 30th May 1990 itself. In any case, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of grant of compassionate appointment, the petitioner cannot lawfully claim compassionate appointment on account of her husband being untraceable since 08th of May 1989 i.e. more than 24 years from now.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The writ petition was preferred in December 2006 with a prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on account of her husband being untraceable since 08th May 1989. The fact that the petitioner's husband was removed from service, was also raised and considered at the time when the petitioner's Title Suit No. 132/98 was decided by the Court of 2nd Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 23rd March 2005 whereby decree for presumption of death of her husband was passed. Thereafter, at the time of filing of the present writ application, no such prayer for challenging the order of removal of her husband was made even being conscious of the said fact. Even the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in August 2007 specifically brought on record the order of removal dated 30th May 1990 by which petitioner's husband was removed with effect from 01st of June 1990. Counter affidavit also encloses the show-cause notice issued in that respect earlier. Now, after all these events which took place more than 23 years ago, in the year 2013, the said order of removal is being purportedly sought to be challenged by way of the instant I.A. The petitioner has failed to show any reason why this proposed challenge to the order of removal of his husband was not made in the original writ application or even after filing of the counter affidavit in August 2007. In any case, in a matter where the petitioner's husband is untraceable since 08th of May 1989, at this stage, after 24 years, in view of the settled position of law, so far as the grant of compassionate appointment is concerned, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the main relief prayed for on behalf of the petitioner in the original writ application, is not fit to be granted. Even otherwise, as per the claim made by her that she was 30 years of age in the year 2006 at the time of filing this writ application, she was about 13 years of age in the year 1989 which itself seems to be implausible. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and the reasons recorded herein, no grounds are made out for interference in the present writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. I.A. is also dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after the order has been recorded, submits that the petitioner may be allowed to move the respondents for any remaining benefits of service such as, gratuity, etc. which may be lying with the respondent. This however, is not the relief prayed for in the instant writ application. However, the petitioner is at liberty to do so which the respondents may consider in accordance with law within a reasonable time. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/