IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13420 of 2010 SUSHRI MADHU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE GOPAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- PUNAICHAK, POST OFFICE ROAD, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.E.D. DIVISION, PATNA WEST, PATNA. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, DISTRICT- PATNA. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 09.03.2011 Petitioner has challenged the resolution of the District Compassionate Committee dated 29.06.2010 as contained in Annexure-4 by which, under item no.21, case of the petitioner, the daughter of the deceased, for her compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the son of the deceased is in Government service. The other ground mentioned therein that the widow of the deceased was getting family pension and had received large amount as terminal benefits is apparently a non est ground. However, in respect of the ground that son of the deceased was in Government service, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the orders of the Circle Officer, Patna an enquiry was held and, on the basis of the report, the Circle Officer, Patna issued a certificate through memo no. 343 dated 2 3.2.2010 as contained in Annexure-5 to the effect that the said son of the deceased was living separately from his mother and sister. Learned counsel submits that this certificate was enclosed with the application for compassionate appointment alongwith many other documents to show that the family of the deceased had no connection with the son who was in Government service. He submits that before rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, on the ground that son of the deceased was in Government service, the Committee ought to have considered this certificate of the Anchal Adhikari and other documents produced alongwith the application. He accepts that the certificate may not be binding on the Committee and the Committee may be at liberty to get further enquiry held and get it ascertained through any agency which it may consider proper to find out as a fact whether the son was living separately from the mother and sister, or not. But he submits that this has not been done by the Committee and in mechanical manner the Committee has rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground that the son of the deceased is in Government service. The writ application was filed on 16.8.2010 with service of two copies in the office of learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed. This Court, upon reading the proceeding of the Committee, in respect of the petitioner, and there being no other material produced on record by the Respondents, accepts the 3 contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that son of the deceased was in Government service was mechanical exercises of power by the Committee without application of mind to the materials available with the application of the petitioner. The said resolution of the Committee in respect of the petitioner is therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Committee to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, taking into account the materials filed by the petitioner alongwith her application and to satisfy itself in any manner it may like with regard to the claim of the petitioner that her brother is separate from the family and not looking after the mother. The Committee will come to a final conclusion on its own independent satisfaction in the matter and thereafter shall take appropriate fresh decision in accordance with law in respect of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations. The decision must be taken by the District Compassionate Committee within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Ibrar/- (J. N. Singh, J.)