DEOMATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground. Husband of Petitioner No. 1, Satya Narayan Mukhia was working as time keeper in the office of Executive Engineer Mechanical Division. Gandak Project, Bettiah and he died in harness on 14.1.1994. Petitioner No. 2 happens to be the son -in -law. Petitioner No. 2 applied for appointment on compassionate ground. By order dated 7.3.2002 his prayer has been rejected.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 2 being the son -in -law of the deceased employee is entitled to be considered for appointment on com - passionate ground. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.8.2001 passed in C.W.J.G. No. 10780/2001 reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 241, Most. Snail Devi and Anr. V/s. The Board of Director and Ors. and my attention has been drawn to the following passage of the said judgment: It is obvious from the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that children of the deceased are either not eligible or interested in appointment. In such circumstances, the petition was filed by Petitioner No. 1 nominating Petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground. The said petition has been rejected on the ground that her minor son shall be provided job when he would be major. This does not appear to be a cogent reason for rejecting the claim of Petitioner No. 2, because of the fact that in case of death in harness family requires immediate financial relief. In other words, it can be said that Respondents are denying immediate relief which is object behind appointment on compassionate ground.

(3.) SO far the scheme on compassionate appointment by which the Petitioner is governed does not contemplate that the son in law shall be dependent in any event. In that view of the matter the decision of this Court in the case of Shail Kumari (sic -Devi ?) referred to above does not in any way supports the case of the Petitioners.