Supreme Court has directed the Bihar Government to reinstate a police constable who was terminated by the Government fifteen years after his appointment on compassionate grounds.
In 1991, Md. Zamil Ahmed was given compassionate appointment as a Police Constable considering the fact that his brother was killed while on official duty and also recording undertaking by Zamil that he would look after the widow of the deceased police officer and his kids.Fifteen years later, he was terminated holding that he being a brother was not included in the definition of dependent of the deceased and hence was not eligible to claim compassionate appointment. This termination from services was challenged before the High Court, but in vain. Finally the constable approached the Apex Court.
Division Bench comprising of Justices J. Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre observing that State was not justified in terminating the his services said :
APPELLANT DID NOT CONCEAL ANY FACTS
The Bench observed: “The appellant and wife of the deceased at the time of seeking compassionate appointment did not conceal any fact and nor filed any false or incorrect document/declaration. On the other hand, both of them disclosed their true family relations and conditions prevailing in the deceased family on affidavit.”
The Court also observed “there was no one in the family of the deceased to claim compassionate appointment except the appellant who, as mentioned above, was the close relative of the deceased, i.e., real younger brother and used to live with the deceased. He was otherwise eligible to claim such appointment being major, educated and only male member in the family.”
STATE HAS CONDONED THEIR LAPSE DUE TO PASSAGE OF TIME OF 15 YEARS
The Court, which observed that it was a right decision taken by the State as a welfare state to help the family of the deceased at the time of need of the family, also added “There was no justification on the part of the State to woke up after the lapse of 15 years and terminate the services of the appellant on such ground. In any case, we are of the view that whether it was a conscious decision of the State to give appointment to the appellant as we have held above or a case of mistake on the part of the State in giving appointment to the appellant which now as per the State was contrary to the policy as held by the learned Single Judge, the State by their own conduct having condoned their lapse due to passage of time of 15 years, it was too late on the part of the State to have raised such ground for cancelling the appellant’s appointment and terminating his services.”
Read the Judgment here.