IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3207 of 2008 Mahendra Sharma, son of Late Ghurfekan Sharma, resident of village Pakri, P.S. Kochas, District-Rohtas …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram) 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas(Sasaram) 4. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, Dehri-on-sone, Dehri, Rohtas 5. The District Establishment Committee, Rohtas, Sasaram …………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar . Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, J.C. to GP XVI ----------- 2. 26.02.2009 The grievance of the petitioner is that his prayer for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar by the impugned order contained in letter no. 5152 dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure-6) on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground of the dependents of persons who have not been heard of for the last seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Md. Noor Alam Vs. The State of Bihar and others along with other analogous cases: 2007(4) PLJR 200, in para- 3 of which, relying upon letter no. 9739 dated 26.11.1997, it has been held by this Court as follows:- “Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings filed by them including different circulars relied on during the hearing of the writ petition, namely, Circular Letter No. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991, Circular Letter No. 9739 dated 26th November, 1997, Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit, and the Circular Letter No. 281 dated 1.2.2006, Annexure-A, I am of the view that the State Government has already taken a decision which is contained in Circular Letter No. 9739 dated 26th November, 1997, Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit to consider the case of the 2 dependents of those Government Servants who have remained traceless for seven years for appointment on compassionate ground which decision has not been revised in the subsequent Circular bearing Letter No. 281 dated 1.2.2006, Annexure-A. In the circumstances, I have no option but to quash the order bearing Letter no. 49 dated 10.2.2005, Annexure-9/Office Order No. 122 dated 31st August, 2005, Annexure-2/Memo No. 260 dated 3.2.2004, Annexure-5/Memo No. 1629 dated 2.8.2005, Annexure-8 and to direct that the State Government is duty bound to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the instructions contained in Circular Letter No. 9739 dated 26th November, 1997, Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit but while considering their case for such appointment the State Government/competent authority of the department concerned shall take into account the family income of the traceless Government Servant from other sources; movable/immovable properties on the basis of which the family survived during the preceding years. Such information is sought for in the application form for compassionate appointment as provided in Circular Letter dated 5.10.1991 and if the family members/dependents survived the intervening seven years in penury then they shall be granted compassionate appointment, otherwise not. The case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment shall be considered as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department/Secretary, Minor Irrigation department/Environment and Forest Department, Bihar, Patna/ Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna/District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Patna.” The writ application is accordingly allowed. The order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure-6) is quashed and the matter is remanded to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the light of the decision of this Court in Md. Noor Alam’s case (supra). S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)