Josef Tirckey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Josef Tirckey vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Disposition Application allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Mar 16, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/516521

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/516521
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Decided On: Mar 16, 2004
Case Number: W.P. (S) No. 1781 of 2002
Subject: Service;Limitation
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Service;Limitation
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed
Acts & sections: Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Josef Tirckey

Advocate A.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Advocate G.P. IV

Legal References

Acts: Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: [2004(2)JCR478(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - 2. the father of the petitioner died in harness on 30.10.1990. after the death of his father, he applied for appointment of compassionate ground and the case of the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment by the executive engineer. 6. in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the executive engineer for reconsideration in the year 2001, i am of the view that the objection the state counsel is not tenable......planning water wage division no. 1 vide his letter no. 565 dated 29.6.2001 as contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition wrote to the deputy commissioner, gumla that the application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner is within the period of five years from the date of death of death of his father and therefore, the case of the petitioner should be reconsidered but no order in this regard has been passed.5. the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of rejection of the application for compassionate appointment was passed in the year 1996 and therefore, at this belated stage this writ petition should not be entertained.6. in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the executive engineer for reconsideration in the year 2001, i am of the view that the objection the state counsel is not tenable.7. in view of my above discussions. i find the order as contained in annexure-2 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as being time barred is absolutely illegal.8. accordingly this application is allowed, the order dated 21.12.1996 as contained in annexure-2 so far as the petitioner is concerned is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the deputy commissioner, gumla for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner.9. the deputy commissioner. gumla shall take into consideration all the relevant materials and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 30.10.1990. After the death of his father, he applied for appointment of compassionate ground and the case of the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment by the Executive Engineer. Advance Planning Water Wage Division No. 1 Gumla, vide letter No. 197 dated 5.5.1995 which has been annexed as Annexure-I to the writ petition.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he applied for appointment on compassionate ground within live years from the date of the death of his father but the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Gumla, by order dated 21.12.1996 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition rejected the claim of the petition on the ground that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was time barred.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the Executive Engineer. Advance Planning Water Wage Division No. 1 vide his Letter No. 565 dated 29.6.2001 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla that the application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner is within the period of five years from the date of death of death of his father and therefore, the case of the petitioner should be reconsidered but no order in this regard has been passed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of rejection of the application for compassionate appointment was passed in the year 1996 and therefore, at this belated stage this writ petition should not be entertained.

6. In view of the fact that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Executive Engineer for reconsideration in the year 2001, I am of the view that the objection the State Counsel is not tenable.

7. In view of my above discussions. I find the order as contained in Annexure-2 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as being time barred is absolutely illegal.

8. Accordingly this application is allowed, the order dated 21.12.1996 as contained in Annexure-2 so far as the petitioner is concerned is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner.

9. The Deputy Commissioner. Gumla shall take into consideration all the relevant materials and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2004 Same Parties Josef Tirckey vs State of Jharkhand and ors. Same Subject Service;Limitation Same Judge Amareshwar Sahay, J. Acts & Sections Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Service;Limitation