CIVIL REVIEW No.13 Of 2001 --- In the matter of a review application under Section 114 and order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. --- RAVI KUMAR BHARTI, son of Late Ram Karan Mochi, resident of village & post Nemapur, police station Chakmehshi, District Samastipur (Petitioner-Respondent)-Petitioner) Versus 1. The State of Bihar , through the District Magistrate, Samastipur 2. The Director, Primary Education, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 4. The Deputy Development commissioner, Samastipur 5. The District Development Officer, Samastipur 6. The Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Samastipur 7. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur 8. The District Accounts Officer, Samastipur. 9. The District Welfare Officer, Samastipur 10. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Samastipur 11. The District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur 12. Mr. Yukti Mehra, the Establishment Deputy Collector, Samastipur. 13. The District Education Officer, Samastipur. 14. The Headmaster, Government Middle School Morsand, Samastipur (Respondent First Party) Opposite party 15. Dhiraj Kumar, son of late Ram Karan Mochi, resident of Village & P.O. Namapur, police station Chakmehshi, District Samastipur. 16. Most. Devki Devi W/o late Ram Karan Mochi, resident of village P.O. Namapur, P.S. Chakmehshi, District Samastipur. (Oopposite Parties) For the Petitioner : Mr. BINOD KUMAR SINGH For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 16 & : Mr. Jitendra Roy, AC to SC 16 ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL **** S. K. Katriar & K.K.Mandal, JJ. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, AC to SC 16. None appears on - 2 - behalf of respondent nos.15 and 16, although they have entered appearance through counsel and filed separate counter affidavits. This application has been filed by respondent no.15 of LPA No.546 of 2000 ( Dhiraj Kumar Vs. State of Bihar) for review/modification of the order dated 12.1.2001, whereby the appeal was disposed of. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the application may be indicated. Ram Karan Mochi was a school teacher in the services of the Bihar Government. He died on 19.2.1996, leaving behind two wives, namely, Ram Pari Devi and Deoki Devi. During his lifetime, he nominated Deoki Devi as the recipient of salary and post-retirement benefits which he received in full. The employee and Ram Pari Devi sired the petitioner as one of their sons. On the other hand, the employee and Deoki Devi has a son, namely, Dhiraj Kumar (respondent no.15). After demise of the employee, Dhiraj Kumar was given appointment on compassionate appointment. The present petitioner challenged the same by preferring CWJC No.8887 of 1999 (Ravi Kumar Bharti Vs. State of Bihar), which was allowed by order dated 9. 3.2000, whereby the appointment of respondent no.15 was set aside and the authorities were directed to consider the case of the present petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It was further observed therein that in case the present petitioner is found unsuitable for appointment, the appointment may be given to respondent no.15 herein. Observations were also made - 3 - regarding sharing of the salary. Aggrieved by this part of the order, respondent no.15 preferred LPA No.546 of 2000 (Dhiraj Kumar Vs. State of Bihar) which was substantially dismissed by order dated 12.1.2001. In the meanwhile, the present petitioner has been given appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner seeks modification of that part of the order of the Division Bench, whereby observations/directions have been given for sharing the money benefits. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that Deoki Devi, the second wife of the Late employee, has been given the whole of the post- retirement benefits including the family pension. There is no material on record to suggest that there has been any direction that she shall share the same with Ram Pari Devi and children. In that view of the matter, we entirely agree with the order of the Division Bench. The compassionate appointment has rightly been given to the present petitioner. However, we do not agree with that part of the observation whereby it has been observed/directed that half of the salary shall be shared by the family. In view of the position that the entire post-retirement benefits have gone to Deoki Devi, the present petitioner shall not be required to part with any portion of the salary with the line of Deoki Devi. He shall be obliged to maintain Ram Pari Devi and her children. It is a possible situation that the authorities might have acted upon the order in question. It would be causing confusion if we direct re-adjustment of the - 4 - money benefits enjoyed and shared by the family. The present order shall, therefore, be prospective in nature. The review application accordingly is disposed of. ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal ) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 21st April, 2009 HR/NAFR