KAMAL RANJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this writ application is whether an adopted son of the deceased Government servant dying in harness in the State of Bihar is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. One Chamela Devi, employed as Ward Attendant at Dinara state Dispensary in the district of Rohtas, died while in service on 7-9 78 According to the petitioner, she being issueless had adopted him as her son in the year 1960, when he was seven years old, as per the Hindu custom and law with the consent of her husband, since dead. Upon the death of Chamela Devi, the petitioner submitted application for his appointment on compassionate ground on 8-11-78. The application was duly recommended for consideration by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee He was called for interview. According to the petitioner, he was found fit for appointment by the Committee and accordingly, by memo No. 1049 dated 30-10-8 the District Magistrate, Rohtas directed the Civil Surgeon to appoint him. However, the order of appointment was not issued. The petitioner in the circumstance came to this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 4390 of 1991. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner being adopted son of Chamela Devi is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground in view of the circular of the State Government. This Court by its order dated 22-4-92 did not accept the said plea and directed the authority to re-consider the case of the petitioner and issue appropriate order for his appointment on compassionate ground if he is otherwise found fit. The Compassionate Appointment Committee considered the matter and rejected the application on 19-9-92 on the same very ground; that is. appoint ment of an adopted son on compassionate ground is not permissible under the circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 15-10-91. The present application was initially filed for initiating contempt proceeding against concerned officers. It was later converted into an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on 15-9-93.

(3.) No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Government Pleader No. 1 however, has raiterated the plea regarding impermissibility of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.