GUNJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the part of order of the proceeding dated 26.07.2014 by which case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that elder son of petitioner is in Government Service and further to direct respondent authorities to consider appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground in the light of Government Circular and decision of this Hon'ble Court. Father of petitioner was Upper Division Clerk Gaya Collectoriate, Gaya, suddenly died in harness on 02.05.2014 due to failure of heart. Mother of petitioner filed an affidavit on 20.05.2014 recommending the name of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and sister of petitioner also filed an affidavit that she had no objection in petitioner being given compassionate appointment. The Circle Officer, Wazirganj vide letter dated 24.05.2014 issued unemployment certificate, stating therein the elder brother of petitioner is only employee who is in Government Service. The elder brother of petitioner is in Army services. The mother of petitioner filed an affidavit on 27.05.2014 stating therein that elder son, namely, Kundan Kumar is in Army Service and is living separately since last three and half years during the life time of deceased employee and is not a dependant of deceased employee. Superintendent of Police, Gaya has issued a character Certificate regarding clean antecedent and Circle Officer, Gaya has also quantified the total income of petitioner's family at Rs. 6000/- per annum from all sources. Petitioner has passed matriculation examination in 1st Division in the year 2010 and Intermediate Science Examination in the year 2012 and petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment before the competent authority in the light of Circular No. 13293 dated 05.10.1991. After completing all requirements and reports from different authorities the application of petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 17.07.2014 at serial No. 4 and same was rejected on the ground that elder brother of petitioner is in Government Service, as such petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that deceased employee was the only source of income and livelihood of his family which included mother, unmarried daughter and petitioner as elder brother of petitioner was in Army service during life time of deceased employee and he was living separately, as such cannot be included as dependant of deceased employee. It has been submitted that rejection of case on compassionate appointment of petitioner is in violation of Circular No. 13293 dated 05.10.1991 and Circular No. 3546 dated 09.06.2008 as well as judgment and orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in different cases.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in which they have supported rejection of claim of petitioner on the ground that one of the family members of deceased is already under employment in Government Service, as such petitioner cannot have claim for compassionate appointment and rejection is on valid and lawful ground. It has been further stated that employed son is duty bound to maintain his mother and if not maintaining his mother then it is open for the mother to claim maintenance in accordance with law, and as such, question of financial hardship to the family of deceased employee does not arise. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Circular of Personal and Administrative Reforms Department of Bihar dated 18.06.2008 in which it has been clearly stated that if any member is employed in Government Service even then the recommendy of widow of deceased employee has to be considered for compassionate appointment if he satisfies the indigent and financial crunch of the family and there is no other source of livelihood of the family. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8956 of 2013 dated 03.09.2014 in which similar issue had arisen and the relevant abstract of the order passed in said case is being quoted below:-