MANJU DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) WHILE Government framed the policy for giving compassionate appointment, it was made clear that an adopted son will not be treated to be a dependent who shall be entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. This policy of the Government was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition which was ultimately decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1994(2) PLJR 536. For the reasons recorded in the said judgment, the Court struck down that portion of the Government policy by which the adopted son was excluded from the purview of a compassionate appointment. The State of Bihar did not challenge this decision of the Division Bench and permitted the same to reach finality. The State Government subsequent to that judgment also did not bring about a new policy by introducing the self same restriction. It accepted the principle enunciated by the Division Bench that son would include a natural son as well as an adopted son and went on giving compassionate appointments to even adopted sons.

(3.) IN such view of the matter, the impugned order by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is an adopted son of the deceased government employee is struck down with a direction upon respondent no. 5 to reconsider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its merits as quickly as possibly but not later than four weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him. This disposes of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.