IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10443 of 2006 BRIJ KISHORI DEVI, Wife of Late Ram Lala Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office- Soana, Police Station- Krish Brahma, District- Buxar. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Collector, Buxar, 3. The District Welfare Officer, Buxar. 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Patna, District Welfare Department, State Government of Bihar. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Circle, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Division, Buxar, District Buxar. 7. The Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Buxar, District Buxar. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 6/ 08.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is widow of late Ram Lala Singh, who was appointed in the Work Charged Establishment of the Rural Engineering Organization of the Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar vide letter no. 1/Stha. 6-82/86 vide Memo No. 1653 dated 09.07.1987, as contained in Annexure 1. The name of the husband of the petitioner figured at serial no. 41, who has been shown to have been appointed as Chaukidar in Work Charged Establishment under Ara Division. It is not in dispute that service of petitioner’s husband was regularized in the Work Charged Establishment. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 19.10.2003. The petitioner, as such has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground was earlier rejected by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, as the representation was sent directly, - 2 - instead through proper channel. Being aggrieved petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 11131 of 2004 and this Court by order dated 01.03.2005 disposed of the writ application with a liberty to file a fresh representation through appropriate channel. It is further observed that in case, such representation is filed, the Compassionate Appointment Committee would consider the same sympathetically. The petitioner duly complied with the direction and filed representation through appropriate channel and her representation has been rejected vide decision of the Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 05.07.2005. The case of the petitioner was considered at serial no. 4. The Committee noticed that as per letter no. 13293 dated 05.10.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground of an employee, who died in harness in Work Charged Establishment. The Committee also noticed letter no. 3647 dated 30.04.2005 of the Department of Personnel and Administrate Reforms. The letter provide that such employees, who after their appointment in Work Charged Establishment has been regularized in regular establishment, then on his death, a legal heir would be entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner referring to Annexure 2 at page 20 submits that her husband was regularized in permanent establishment of the Government, which fact is being controverted by the learned counsel for the State. In case, the petitioner has been subsequently appointed or regularized in permanent establishment of the Government, the - 3 - application for compassionate appointment is to be considered on merit. In this circumstance, the petitioner is allowed one more opportunity to show that the service of her husband was regularized in permanent establishment. In case, the petitioner makes such representation to the compassionate appointment committee through proper channel, the same will again be considered in terms of the observations made above. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)