ABHIMANYU RAM Vs. SLATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order of a learned single Judge rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The facts which are not in dispute are that the grand father of the petitioner, a government employee, died in 1983 leaving behind two sons and a large number of grand sons including the appellant. The appellant being the grand son claims his appointment on compassionate ground which has been rejected by the authority on the sole ground that in terms of the government policy the grand son is not one of the dependents to be appointed on compassionate ground.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the appellant is a grand son and is not entitled to be appointed in terms of the government policy but as the deceased employee had nourished and brought him up like his son he should be treated as adopted son of the deceased and should be appointed on compassionate ground as prior to 1991 the adopted son was also to be appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the government policy. In support of his submissions he has relied upon two cases one being the case of K.V. Muthu vs. Angamuthu Ammal (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 628) and another a Division Bench judgment of this court in 1994 (2) PLJR 536 (Kamal Ranjan vs. State of Bihar and ors.). We are unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reasons stated hereinafter. There is a wrong impression in some quarters that appointment on compassionate ground is a mode of appointment and that should be made available to the dependents of the deceased employee after his death. The sole object of appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the deceased on his untimely death. It is not a mode of employment. The ground of such appointment is only available to the dependents of deceased employee who fall in the category as laid down in the policy determined by the employer. The appellant is the grand son of the deceased employee. He is not entitled to be appointed as such on compassionate ground. So far as the claim of the appellant for treating him as adopted son is concerned, in the writ petition itself the appelant has stated that the deceased had from the very childhood kept the appellant and nourished him and also made him nominee in the service book and as such he should be treated as adopted son; barring few cases every grand son is treated by the grand father in a good manner and that will not mean that a grand son should be treated as his own son by the grand father. Thus the claim of the appellant that he was the adopted son of the deceased has to be rejected on the aforesaid ground. This apart there is complete legal bar in such adoption as the deceased died leaving behind his sons. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

(3.) THUS we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.