KIRAN DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.N. Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, learned AC to SC-11, for the State.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 212 dated 12.8.2016, whereby the Superintending Engineer has returned the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, inter alia, on grounds that being a married daughter she is not entitled to the benefit. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order bearing letter no. 106 dated 7.2.2017 of the Executive Engineer, impugned at Annexure 12, whereby the claim has been rejected, inter alia, on grounds that her case does not come within the scope of the policy decision bearing letter no. 16973 dated 10.12.2014 and letter no. 1866 dated 4.2.2015, which does not entitle the petitioner to the relief.

(3.) Mr. Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon the very same circulars, copies of which are placed at Annexures 3 and 4 respectively, to submit that a married daughter has been brought within the category of dependents and thus, the rejection is mechanical and without notice to the stipulations present in the decision of the General Administration Department dated 10.12.2014 at Annexure 4, which was reiterated vide letter dated 27.5.2015 at Annexure 3.