Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 August, 2024
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19524 of 2012
======================================================
Chandan Kumar S/O Late Shambhu Prasad Singh Resident Of Village-
Bhelwa, P.O. P.S. Hisua, Distt.- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Siwan Through Its
Chairman, The District Magistrate, Siwan
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan
4. The Deputy Establishment Collector, Siwan, District- Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Singh
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Anand Kumar, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-08-2024
Heard Mr. Rama Kant Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Dr. Anand Kumar,
learned AC to AAG-3 appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition has sought inter alia the following relief(s), which
is reproduced hereinafter:-
"That this is an application for issuance of
appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for
quashing of the proceeding of District Magistrate -
Cum- District Compassionate Appointment
Committee, Siwan vide Memo No.81(mu) Sthapana,
dated 16th August 2012 issued by Respondent No.2 by
which claim of petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground has been rejected. And further
respondents be directed to consider and appoint the
petitioner on appropriate post on compassionate
ground.
And/Or
Pass such other order(s) which may deem fit and
Patna High Court CWJC No.19524 of 2012 dt.12-08-2024
2/7
proper."
3. Brief facts are that the father of the petitioner had
died in harness on 22.04.2009, while he was posted as Sub-
Inspector in Police Line, Siwan. The deceased had left behind
three married sons, one unmarried son, two daughters and a
widow (mother of the petitioner). The married sons were living
separately from the father and one son was working in Air
Force. The application of the petitioner for considering him to
be appointed on compassionate ground was considered by the
District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 22.06.2009
and the Committee had rejected the claim of the petitioner, on
the ground that one elder brother of the petitioner was working
in Air Force, without considering the fact that during the lifetime
of the deceased employee, he separated from the family. The
petitioner had filed CWJC No.9008 of 2012 for quashing of the
proceeding of the District Magistrate-cum-District
Compassionate Appointment Committee, Siwan dated
22.06.2009
, 08.07.2010 and 20.01.2012, by which the claim of
the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was
rejected. Vide order dated 06.07.2012 passed in CWJC No.9008
of 2012, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed to
reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the enquiry report
Patna High Court CWJC No.19524 of 2012 dt.12-08-2024
and the recommendation made, as contained in "Annexure-11"
of the said writ petition. The case of the petitioner was
reconsidered by the Committee being Agenda No.18 and the
Committee had opined that in absence of any valid partition by
the order of the Competent Court, the severance of the elder
brother of the petitioner from the family, can not be sustained.
The rejection is also on the ground that Senior Citizens
(Maintenance, Protection and Welfare) Bill-2006, was
applicable in the case of the deceased employee.
4. A counter affidavit and supplementary counter
affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4
and I find that the only ground taken on behalf of the
respondents is that Memo No.2263 dated 17.08.2006, issued by
the Personnel and Administrative Department, Bihar, is not
related with the appointment of Priyaranjan Kumar, rather, it is
in respect of Late Saudagar Prasad, and rejection being on the
ground that the elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Deen
Dayal has been employed in Air force, the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee had rejected the claim
of the petitioner on said ground, vide its recommendation
contained in Memo No. 513 dated 04.07.2009, Memo No.786
dated 02.07.2010 and Memo No.34(Mu.) dated 27.01.2012. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.19524 of 2012 dt.12-08-2024
has been specifically informed in paragraph no.5 of the
supplementary counter affidavit that the Memo No.81 dated
16.08.2012, received by the District Compassionate Committee,
Siwan, also considered the fact that the petitioner's brother Mr.
Deen Dayal Singh had not separated from the family through
Court, in accordance with law. It has further been informed that
the petitioner's mother, who is an old lady, can seek
maintenance under Section 4 of the Senior Citizens
(Maintenance, Protection and Welfare) Bill-2006, from the elder
brother of the petitioner, as well as, it has also been stated that
the mother also has right of maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find it relevant to take notice
of the statement made in paragraph no.5 of the supplementary
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 to 4, for
considering the manner in which the law has been interpreted by
the Authority, who has sworn the counter affidavit. Paragraph
No. 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit inter alia is
reproduced hereinafter:
"That it is an admitted fact that the petitioner's
brother Mr. Dindayal Singh is employed in Air
Force. The proceeding of the District
Compassionate Committee, Siwan as contained in
Memo No.513 dated 04.07.2009, Memo No.786
dated 02.07.2010 and 34 (Mu.) dated 27.01.2012 of
District Compassionate Committee, Siwan show
that the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected
keeping in view the relevant rules and departmental
letter. The further proceeding as contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.19524 of 2012 dt.12-08-2024
Memo No.81 (Mu.) dated 16.08.2012 issued by the
District Compassionate Committee, Siwan also
considered the fact that the petitioner's said brother
Dindayal Singh is not separated from the family
through Court in accordance with law and the
petitioner's mother and other deponents have the
right to seek their maintenance u/s 4 of the Senior
Citizens (Maintenance, Protection and Welfare)
Bill-2006 and the petitioner's mother is also having
the right of maintenance from the son under
Section/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure."
5. In counter affidavit, reliance has already been
made to communication dated 24.10.2011, in which, it has been
clarified that any of the "dependent" of the deceased employee,
who is in service and has not separated then the other
dependent's case for being appointed on compassionate ground
can not be considered. In spite of the said clear instruction, the
District Magistrate has not considered the case of the petitioner
that the elder son of the deceased employee had separated from
the family about 11-12 years before his death and he was not
dependent in any manner on the deceased employee and he was
earning his own income and sustaining his own family. The
petitioner was forced to file writ petition before this Court and
the present writ petition is pending since the year 2012.
6. I find that the rejection of the petitioner, on the
ground that the elder brother, who had already separated and
was not dependent, in any manner, on the deceased employee,
the case of the petitioner has not been considered in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.19524 of 2012 dt.12-08-2024
with law and the governing guidelines of the State Government,
in respect of compassionate appointment.
7. The petitioner had made application within time
and the scheme of the compassionate appointment, no doubt, is
to come out from immediate financial crisis and destitute which
the family face, soon after the death of the bread earner. In the
present case, in respect of the petitioner, the rejection is on the
ground that the petitioner could not support the very factum of
separation of the elder brother by any Court's order. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner is not a Hindu and law is well settled
that severance of family/partition can be held by way of meets
and bounds. I don't find any merit in the case, in spite of the fact
that Dr. Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, has relied
and tried to interpret the clarification made in support of the
Impugned Order that the elder son of the deceased employee
was in service and, as such, the case of the petitioner has rightly
been rejected is misconceived, as well as, the fact that the
governing law and the right, which is available to the mother of
the petitioner, is a separate right and the same can not be inter-
mingled in respect of the right, which has been accrued
immediately at the time of death of the deceased employee to
the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19524 of 2012 dt.12-08-2024
8. Accordingly, the Memo No.81 (mu) dated
16.08.2012, by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment
on compassionate ground has been rejected by the District
Magistrate-Cum-District Compassionate Appointment
Committee, Siwan is hereby set-aside and quashed.
9. The matter is referred to be considered by the
District Compassionate Appointment Committee afresh, in
accordance with law and discussion made hereinabove.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J.)
Niraj/-
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.08.2024
Transmission Date NA
