IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10694 of 2007 Lalit Paswan, son of Sahdeo Paswan, Resident of Village Sripur, Police Sttion Pratapganj, District Supaul. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 22.4.2011 Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief prayed in paragraph no.1 of this writ application:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus direction to the Respondents to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Awaji Chaukidar on compassionate ground as the petitioner’s father namely Sahdeo Paswan retired from the post of Awaji Chaukidar on 30.11.1999 posted at Raghopur Police Station and to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner and any other appropriate writ, order save and except in accordance with law.” Mr. Prasad, who has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit today in the Court Room itself, would submit that Annexure-2, the proceedings of the Establishment Committee of Supaul Collectorate dated 19.7.2003, would go to show that a large number of persons were appointed after the retirement of Chaukidar in view of the circular issued by the State Government providing that when a Chaukidar would superannuate from service, he will have a right to nominate his ward for his being appointed 2 on the post of Chaukidar He has also in this regard referred to the panel of different persons and on the basis of the same, he is of the view that since a large number of persons, whose father after retirement had nominated them for appointment infact have already been appointed the petitioner cannot be denied the same benefit. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed denying the claim of the petitioner on various grounds. Primarily it has been asserted that the earlier policy made for appointment on the post of Chaukidar by way of nomination no longer exist in view of the Rules dated 25.8.2006 framed under proviso to Article 309 notified by the Home Police Department dated 25.8.2006. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the petitioner may or may not have a claim for appointment on regular basis after retirement of his father and nomination made by him, the relief sought in this writ application for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be allowed for a simple reason that the policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government envisages only appointment of dependant of such a Government servant who would die in harness. That is how, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department either in the year 1977 laying down the first policy by circular dated 12.7.1977 or even in the subsequent circular dated 5.10.1991, has made ‘death in harness’ a condition precedent for appointment on compassionate ground. Once this aspect becomes clear, this Court would not be in a position to even accede to the prayer of Mr. Prasad that this 3 case should be adjourned for allowing the petitioner to find out the Government circular providing appointment of Chaukidar on compassionate ground in the case of retirement of such employee. The Government policy of compassionate appointment could not have been changed by the Home Police Department in terms of the Rules of Executive Business laying down that it is only the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, which, with the prior consent and approval of the Finance Department, can issue any statutory rules or Executive Instructions with regard to laying down service condition including the manner of recruitment/appointment in the government service. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in this application seeking compassionate appointment of the petitioner and the same has to be dismissed.. It is, however, made clear that this Court has only rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and not his such claim for regular appointment on the post of Chaukidar and if, therefore, the petitioner may have any grievance as with regard to his regular appointment, he may still pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)