IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10303 of 2002 PRAVIN KUMAR, son of late Ishwar Chand Prasad Singh, resident of village Rampur, P.S. Runni Saidpur, District Sitamarhi … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Sitamarhi 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi … Respondents ----------- 6. 30.3.2010 Heard Mr. S.S.Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Govt. Advocate No.I, for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash an order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the Collector of Sitamarhi District rejecting the case for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Mr. Dwivedi would submit that here was a piquant case, inasmuch as the deceased employee, the father of the petitioner, had before his death on 25.6.2000 got his partition effected through a decree of the civil court dated 31.5.2000 in Partition Suit No. 48/2000, wherein it was adjudicated that the entire property would be apportioned wherein half of it had given to 2 the wife and one son and the remaining half was left in the share of the father of the petitioner as well as the petitioner who were staying together. The reason for such a partition suit is said to be the petitioner marrying on his own which was opposed by his mother but accepted by his father. Mr. Dwivedi, therefore, submitted that when after death of the father, the mother had refused to extend/support the petitioner he had no other option but to seek compassionate appointment on the ground of death of his father but the Collector of the District had wrongly proceeded to reject the same on the ground that since there was no judicial separation between the father and the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner would be disentitled for his appointment on compassionate ground in view of the government policy laying down prohibition of appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent of a government servant whose other spouse was still continuing in service of the government on the date of death of the spouse. Mr. Tekriwal, learned counsel for 3 the State, on the other hand, with the help of the counter affidavit has submitted that there is a conscious government decision that in the event of death of such a male employee whose wife is in employment, there would be no question of giving the dependent the benefit appointment on compassionate ground. He has, accordingly, proceeded to support the view taken by the Collector that a mere partition suit with regard to apportionment of family property cannot be said to be a proof of judicial separation or the father and mother of the petitioner not remaining married so as to carve out an exception for appointment of one of the dependent in the event of death of one of the spouse. In the considered opinion of this Court the view subscribed by the learned counsel for the State has to be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly the policy of compassionate appointment as framed by the employer/ Government is the Magna Carta and therefore, anyone and everyone claiming such appointment must be found to be eligible under the policy. In the present case when 4 there is a complete embargo on employment of a dependent of a deceased Government employee whose wife/ husband is already in employment, no exception can be made out in the case of the petitioner only because there was a partition in the family, wherein the husband and wife had mutually agreed to apportion their property. Moreover such a partition suit filed in the year 2000 may have given certain rights to the petitioner as with regard to claiming family property to the extent of civil court decree but then a compassionate appointment being matter of Government policy cannot be apportioned on the basis of decree of civil court. Specially when in such a partition suit neither the Government nor the Collector was made a party so as to bind them by the decree of the civil court. Once this aspect becomes clear that the father of the petitioner died with his marriage subsisting with the mother of the petitioner, the scope and extension of the Government policy prohibiting appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent whose either parents still continuing in service 5 will also squarely cover the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that the Collector of the District has committed no error in rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. This application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/