MOST.SUMITRA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and T.M. Bhagalpur University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University').

(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the University raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the petitioner, along with her son, had also filed C.W.J.C. No. 13283 of 2006, which was disposed off by order dated 06.05.2010. It was submitted that though the said writ petition was filed seeking appointment on compassionate ground of the son of the petitioner and the writ petition being disposed off with a direction to the authorities of the University to consider for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the Vice Chancellor has passed a detailed order dated 03.08.2011, in which the claim, both for death-cum- retiral benefits as well as for appointment on compassionate ground, has been rejected. It was submitted that the thrust of the order is basically with regard to the status of the service of the late husband of the petitioner and for reasons assigned in the order itself, it has been held that the service of the petitioner was never on a sanctioned post and, thus, once the same is so held, neither can there be any entitlement to death-cum-retiral benefits nor for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submitted that the said order was passed pursuant to the case filed by the petitioner and her son and, thus, she shall be presumed to be aware of the order and till date not having challenged the same, the relief claimed in the present writ application cannot be granted to her. In support of the order, learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court to various directions of the Hon'ble Chancellor of the Universities indicating that there had been large scale illegal appointments made by the University authorities and a specific direction was given to take corrective measures and it was further indicated that if any payment is made to such appointees, the officer concerned shall be held liable.