MAHESH PANDIT Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, in the present appeal under Clause -10 of the Letters Patent of this court, has questioned the order, dated 17.06.2014, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in CWJC No. 18245 of 2010, whereby the appellant's challenge to an order, dated 21.07.2009, passed by respondent No. 4 herein, rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on account of sudden death of his father, has been turned down.

(2.) THE appellant's father, Late Ramchandra Pandit, is said to have died in harness on 11.08.2007, while working as Amin in the district of Muzaffarpur. Claiming to be dependant of the deceased employee, the appellant filed an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. From a communication, vide Memo No. 565, dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure -4 to the writ petition), which was impugned in the writ application filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will appear that the appellant's application for his appointment, on compassionate ground, was placed before the District level Compassionate Appointment Committee, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'), on 29.06.2009. Considering the fact that petitioner's brother was gainfully employed as Panchayat Teacher, the Committee, relying upon certain orders of this Court, decided to reject the appellant's application. The said decision of the Committee was communicated to the appellant through the aforesaid letter issued, vide Memo No. 565, dated 21.07.2009.

(3.) QUESTIONING the order of learned single Judge, Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has placed reliance upon a division Bench order of this Court Anil Kumar v. the State of Bihar & Others, reported in : 2007 (4) PLJR 511. Learned Counsel has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prasad Verma v. LIC of India, reported in, (2005) 10 SCC 289, in support of his contention and has submitted that the authorities committed error by taking into account the amount of terminal benefits, which were being paid to the widow of the deceased employee, as reason/ground for rejecting the appellant's application for appointment on compassionate ground.