- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3401 of 2007 PARTIMA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O LATE SHAILENDRA KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-BIRDIH, P.O. BIRDIH, P.S.ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT-NALANDA. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 2.DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF. 4.DISTRICT, HORTICULTURE CENTRE, NALANDA. ……………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners: Mr. Alim Jang Khan, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Anjani Kumar, A.A.G.- 10 and Mr. Shailendra Kumar A.C to A.A.G.10. ----------- 02/ 01.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks a direction that the respondents should consider her case of appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that she happens to be the widow of the pre-deceased son of the employee Nandu Paswan, who died in harness because her husband, Shailendra Kumar the son of deceased employee who was initially recommended for appointment on compassionate ground could not be appointed due to his premature death and therefore the petitioner admittedly being in one of the four prescribed categories of dependent would be entitled for consideration - 2 - of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Khan also submits that the petitioner while highlighting this aspect would also place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Kumar Vs State of Bihar reported in 2001(4) PLJR 274, wherein this Court has made certain observations to the effect that appointment on compassionate ground should not be confined only to the four categories and in exceptional case, the respondent should consider even such relatives of the deceased employee who strictly did not fall within the prescribed categories in the Government policy. He would, however submit that in any event, the petitioner being the widow of the pre-deceased son in absence of any other category of dependent would be entitled for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned AAG-X on the other hand with the help of counter affidavit would submit that in this case, the petitioner would not fall in the category of widow of pre-deceased son, inasmuch as, on - 3 - the date of death of the deceased employee i.e.28.03.2002, there were only two sons namely Shailendra Kumar and Sandeep Kumar as would be apparent from the affidavit filed by the widow of the deceased employee. He would further submit that the widow after the death of the elder son had nominated her second son Sandeep Kumar for appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, the petitioner can not be appointed on compassionate ground. Mr. Khan, in reply would submit that it is wholly incorrect to say that the petitioner was married to Nandu Paswan only after the death of the deceased employee on 28.03.2002, and the fact that, the petitioner prior to the death of her husband Shailendra Kumar had an issue aged about two years would go to show that such marriage was performed in the lifetime of the deceased employee. In the considered opinion of this Court two things are very clear which would go to show that the petitioner would fall in the category of dependent of deceased employee, namely:- (I) As per the Government policy, - 4 - dated 5.10.1991 the widow of pre-deceased son is also entitled to be considered, apart from the wife, son and unmarried daughter of the deceased employee. (II) The family of the deceased employee had only four dependents, namely the widow, the two sons, and the petitioner being widow of the pre-deceased son. In such a situation, the applicability of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar (supra) will have no relevance, inasmuch as, either the petitioner can succeed on the basis of her being eligible for appointment in capacity of a widow of the pre-deceased son, if she was already married to Shailendra Kumar on or before 28.03.2002 and has still remained a widow till date inasmuch as, then alone she can be said to be the widow of the pre-deceased son. The position would however be different, if Shailendra Kumar, had been already appointed and could have died after such appointment, inasmuch as in that case, the petitioner could have automatically gone into the category being the wife of the deceased employee. As on date, the petitioner - 5 - can only be placed in the fourth category but a person of the second category namely the other son of the deceased employee namely Sandeep Kumar has been nominated for appointment on compassionate ground by the widow of the deceased employee. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the respondents to consider the case of Sandeep Kumar in the first instance and if Sandeep Kumar is eligible and is appointed on compassionate ground, it would be his duty to also maintain the petitioner if she is still a widow and has not remarried inasmuch as she will then be definitely a dependent of the deceased employee, even if, her marriage had not taken place on 28.03.2002, the date of death of the deceased employee. Learned A.A.G is however, correct in taking a stand that if the petitioner is already married, she will not be entitled for either for her appointment or being supported by the family of the deceased but then, if she has not been married again after the death of her first husband Late Shailendra Kumar and if Sandeep Kumar the second son of - 6 - deceased employee is not willing to be appointed on compassionate ground and the case of the husband of the petitioner i.e. the first son of deceased employee namely Shailendra Kumar was pending consideration for his compassionate appointment, the interest of justice would require also to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, if she was already married to Shailendra Kumar on or before 28.03.2002. Thus whatever decision has to be taken in this regard either by way of appointment of Sandeep Kumar or of the petitioner or even none of them must be taken in the light of aforesaid observations within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha ,J. )