IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14556 of 2006 Bimlesh Kumar Dubey, son of late Awadhesh Kumar Dubey,resident of Mohalla- Mohmad Heyat Khan Ki Gali,Dumraon, P.S. Dumraon, District- Buxar. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary,Department of Health 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,Department of Health 4. The Medical Officer incharge, Primary Health Centre 5. The District Compassionate Committee, Buxar, through District Magistrate. 6. The District Magistrate, Buxar 7. Mostt.Chanchala Devi, W/o late Mirulegh Dubey at present working on the post of Clerk. P.H.C.Nai Bazar, Buxar, P.S.and District. Buxar. For the petitioner: Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha,Advocate For the State: Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh,G.A.8 For respondent No.7:Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee,Advocate --- 12. 22.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.7. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for quashing the order dated 1.9.2006, by which the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of compassionate ground after the death of his father has been rejected and respondent No.7, the widow of his second brother has been appointed. The case of the petitioner is that his father late Awadhesh Kumar Dubey died on 31.1.2002 during the course of his service while working as Compounder in the Additional Primary Health Centre, Siraul in Buxar District. His father left behind two sons including the petitioner and three daughters and one widow daughter-in- law, namely, Mostt. Chanchala Devi (respondent No.7). In paragraph No.5 of the writ application, it is stated that the eldest son of the deceased employee, namely, Bimlesh Kumar Dubey is already employed in service and living separately along with his family and 2 the three sons of the deceased employee were living separaterly during his life time. It is stated that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of his father but the documents were suppressed by the Incharge Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre and subsequently, the petitioner also entered into correspondences in the year 2005 and produced affidavits of his brother and sister before the Civil Surgeon. According to the State respondents, no application was ever filed by the petitioner and there is no such record in the Primary Health Centre. The further stand is that the petitioner being separate from his father was not dependent upon the deceased employee, whereas respondent No.7, who claims to be the dependent upon the deceased employee, being widow of the pre-deceased son of the deceased employee, has two minor daughters and was dependent on the deceased employee during his life time. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was not fit for compassionate appointment whereas respondent No.7 was found fit and has been granted compassionate appointment . Several points and issues have been raised in the present matter by the petitioner and the respondents regarding the affidavits, etc. that have been filed and an agreement was also allegedly entered into between the parties, which is asserted by the respondents and denied by the petitioner. However, in view of the admission of the petitioner in the writ petition that all the three sons including the petitioner were separate in mess during the life time of their father, late Awadhesh 3 Kumar Dubey, it is evident that the petitioner cannot come within the definition of dependent in terms of the Government Resolution No. 3/C 2-2067/90 Ka. 13293 dated 5.10.1991. In his reply to counter affidavit, the petitioner has tried to wriggle out of the situation by making statements contrary to para 5 of the writ petition but the same being mere after thought can be of no avail to him. It is evident from the aforesaid Resolution that compassionate appointment can be granted only to the dependent of the deceased employee. The petitioner himself states that he was separate during the life time of his father, late Awadhesh Kumar Dubey and, therefore, certainly he was not dependent upon the deceased employee and the death of the deceased employee cannot be said to have put him in financial distress, which is the sole ground on which compassionate appointment has been permitted by the Courts. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Supreme Court and by this Court that compassionate appointment is not a matter of succession to an office, rather the only purpose for giving compassionate appointment is to mitigate the financial distress of the dependents of the deceased employee on the death of the sole bread earner. Since the petitioner was admittedly separate in mess from his father deceased employee, hence, there was no occasion for him to have claimed compassionate appointment, even apart from assertions of respondent No.7 that the petitioner has got commercial driving licence and is plying vehicles and also managing Tours and Travel Agency from before the death of late Awadhesh Kumar Dubey. 4 Thus, there is no merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)