INDRA MAYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.11.2000 passed by the respondent Bihar Inter University Board whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Further paryer of the petitioner is for payment of arrears of salary due to her husband in the regular scale of pay.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners husband Mit Narayan Kumar was appointed on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per day for three months by order dated 28.10.1981 (Annexure -1). By order dated 30.11.1988 (Annexure -1/A), it was decided that the service of the petitioners husband shall be regularised after the two posts of peons are sanctioned/revived by the State Government. Later on, by order dated 3.7.1991 (Annexure -4), the Office Order dated 30.11.1988 (Annexure -1/A) was cancelled and it was decided that the petitioner shall get salary in the scale of Rs. 350 -455/ -. Petitioners husband challenged the same by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4851 of 1991 (Mita Narayan Kunwar V/s. Bihar lnter University Board & Ors.). In the meanwhile, it seems that the petitioners husband died and the petitioner herein who happens to be his widow was substituted in his place. However, when the matter was taken up, the petitioner did not challenge the said order but pressed the application only for the payment of arrears of remuneration. By order dated 28.1.1999 (Annexure -5), liberty was given to the petitioner to file representation and a consequential direction was given to the Bihar Inter University Board to dispose of the said representation by reasoned order within three months from the date of its filing. It was further directed that in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any amount, same be paid to her within a period of two months from the date of the order upon the representation.

(3.) MR . R. K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioners husband was appointed on daily wages as back as on 28.10.1981 and in that view of the matter, he ought to have been regularised in service and for the purpose of salary and appointment on compassionate ground, it shall be deemed that her husband was a regular employee. It is relevant here to state that by order dated 30.11.1988, a decision was taken to regularize the services of the petitioners husband on sanction/revival of the two posts of the peons but the said order was rescinded by order dated 3.7.1991 and although the petitioner made a challenge to the same in C.W.J.C. No. 4851 of 1991, but ultimately, gave up the same. Petitioners husband died on 15.10.1996 and in that view of the matter, the prayer made by the petitioner that her husband shall be deemed to have been regularised in service, cannot be accepted. Once it is held so, the petitioners husband being a daily wage employee, remuneration on account thereof has already been paid. Further the dependent of a daily wage employee is not entitled to be given appointment on compassionate ground. In that view of the matter, the decision taken by the respondents not to give to the petitioner appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be faulted.