RAJ KISHORE KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ applications have been filed by the two sons of the deceased Government employee, both claiming appointment on compassionate ground and accordingly they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) C .W.J.C. No. 993 of 2006 has been filed by Raj Kishor Kumar stating that the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Peon in the office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Meenapur -2, Muzaffarpur, died while in service on 3.7.1995. On 25.7.1996 he filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner claims to be the eldest son of the second wife of the deceased employee, whereas respondent no. 7 Jai Kishore Mahto (who is also the petitioner in the second writ application, C.W.J.C. No. 16352 of 2008) is stated to be the son of the first wife of the deceased employee. The petitioner is claiming that after the death of the first wife the deceased employee again married and four sons including the petitioner were born out of the said marriage. He is also claiming that after death of his father he is managing the whole affairs of the family and that respondent no. 7 is living separately from.before the death of their father and managing his affairs out of his own earnings. The District Compassionate Committee by its order dated 23.5.2000 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was the son of the deceased employee born from the second wedlock which is contrary to law.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the same, the petitioner .came to this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3751 of 2000. in which respondent no. 7 also appeared and the application was disposed of by this Court by order dated 28.3.2005 directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision in the matter with regard to the issue of appointment of both the petitioner and respondent no. 10 in accordance with law within a period of three months. Thereafter the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 8.12.2005 considered the case of the petitioner and again rejected the same on the ground that son of the first wife is alive and in the said circumstances the son of second wife does not have any right to appointment on compassionate ground.