S. Ravindra Bhat JUDGMENT
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
1. The Respondent requested the Appellants to appoint her son in the place of his father who was missing since 2002 which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand. The writ petition was allowed and the appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal.
2. The husband of the Respondent was an Operator, Helper Category (Category II) at Gidi Washery The Respondent informed the officer in-charge of Bhurkunda Thana, Hazaribagh that her husband was missing since 03.10.2002. A copy of the said information was communicated to the Regional Officer of the Gidi Washery. A charge-sheet was issued by Appellant No. 1 to the Respondent's husband for desertion of duty since 01.10.2002 and an inquiry was conducted in which the Respondent participated on behalf of her husband. On the basis of Inquiry Officer's report, the Appellant No. 1 terminated the services of the Respondent's husband with effect from 21.09.2004.
3. The Respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh seeking a declaration of civil death of her missing husband. The said suit was decreed with effect from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 23.12.2009 by a judgment dated 13.07.2012. The Respondent made a representation on 17.01.2013 seeking compassionate appointment for her son which was rejected on 03.05.2013. The request for compassionate appointment was rejected by Appellant No. 1 on the ground that the Respondent's husband was already dismissed from service and therefore, the request for compassionate appointment could not be entertained.
4. Challenging the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment of her son, the Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by a judgment dated 03.08.2015. The High Court held that the proceedings leading to the termination of the Respondent's husband from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On the said basis, the order of termination of Respondent's husband from service was quashed. The rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment of her son was also quashed and the first Appellant was directed to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the Respondent's son in accordance with law. By an order dated 03.08.2016 the first Appellant decided that there was no merit in the request for appointment of Respondent's son. It was observed in the order of rejection dated 03.08.2016 that the Respondent was in employment and both her sons were shown as her dependents. It was further noted that the Respondent's husband was missing since 03.10.2002 and the Respondent's son was not entitled to seek compassionate appointment which is normally provided as a succour to the family of a deceased employee in harness. Another reason given for rejecting the request for compassionate appointment was that a decision was taken in the meeting of Directors (Personnel) on 19.10.2013 that compassionate appointment cannot be provided to the dependents of missing employees (Deemed death).
5. The High Court through its judgment dated 16.08.2018 set aside the order dated 03.08.2016 by holding that the note of discussions of the Directors meet held at Jaipur cannot be considered as policy decision and it cannot be the basis for rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment.........