ASHISH KR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:-

(2.) Mr. Amresh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that since the father of the petitioner was working for a period of more than five years in the work charge establishment he would be deemed to have become a regular employee and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground solely on the basis that the father of the petitioner was working as a Khalasi in the work charge establishment suffers from an apparent error. He would further submit that there has been at least one case to the knowledge of the petitioner where one Bibha Devi, a dependent of a work charge employee, was appointed on compassionate ground and to that extent he would rely on the averments made in paragraph-6 of the writ application which according to him has also not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. He would further place reliance on an unreported judgment/order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1085/2003 (Shashibhushan Sharma vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.)

(3.) Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the issue relating to appointment of a dependent of a work charge employee stands settled by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2004 4 PLJR 889, wherein the Division Bench has laid down the law that the dependent of a work charge employee would not qualify for appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as the policy of the Government itself prescribes that the deceased employee must be holder of a sanctioned post in order to qualify for consideration of his ward/dependent for appointment on compassionate ground. He would further submit that when the case of Bibha Devi was considered by the respondents there was no clarity as with regard to Government decision, inasmuch as such a decision came only on 24.1.1994 (Annexure 'A'), whereas the precedent case of Bibha Devi relied by the petitioner is of the year 1984, inasmuch as her appointment was made on 2.2.1984. Explaining the case of Shashibhushan Sharma learned counsel for the State has submitted that the same no way was concerned with compassionate appointment, inasmuch as it was an issue of pay scale of Shashibhushan Sharma which was the subject matter before this Court.