JANKI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground. Further prayer made by the petitioners is to quash the order dated 5.7.96 (Annexure 10) whereby petitioner no. 2 has been informed that he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the application are that husband of petitioner no. 1 and father -in -law of petitioner no. 2, namely, Shyam Bihari Singh was employed as Lineman and was posted at Mahua subdivision of the Bihar State Electricity Board. He died while in service on 23.9.94 leaving behind her widow and two daughters : Indu Devi and Lalita Devi. Petitioner no. 2 happens to be the husband of Lalita Devi. Petitioner no. 1 i.e. widow of the deceased employee, filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to her son -in -law i.e. petitioner no. 2 on 25.2.95 inter alia stating that after death of her husband his daughter, Lalita Devi and her husband, petitioner no. 2 is looking after her. The prayer of the petitioners was considered by respondent - Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and by the impugned communication dated 5.7.96 petitioner no. 2 was informed that he being the son -in -law of the deceased employee is not entitled for appointment on compassonate ground.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 in which Standing order governing appointment on compassionate ground dated 18.2.94 has been placed on record. According to the said standing order, one of the dependent of the deceased employees, namely, husband/wife of the deceased employee, son, unmarried daughter or widow daughter -inlaw can be appointed on compassionate ground. It has further been averred that certified standing order has not contemplated for appointment of the son -in -law on compassionate ground. Accordingly, stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that petitioner no. 2 being the son -in -law of the deceased employee is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and as such his prayer for appointment on compassioante ground was rightly rejected.