IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2090 of 2006 RANJEET KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh,Advocate Mr. Umesh Kumar,Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, J.C. to Govt. Pleader No.20 --- 4. 12.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure-5) passed by the Secretary, District Compassionate Committee, Gaya, by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. It is further prayed that a direction be issued upon the State- respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar on compassionate ground in terms of the decision of the Government, as contained in Circular No.1683 dated 19.11.1994 (Annexure-6), issued by the Department of Home (Police) and for further holding that Circular No.12094 dated 11.11.2004 ( Annexure-11) issued by the Department of Home (Police) is not applicable in the case of compassionate appointment on the post of Chawkidar and the earlier Circular still holds good and is applicable in the case of compassionate appointment on the post of the Chowkidar. The short facts of the case are that the maternal grand father of the petitioner, namely, Ram Chandra Yadav died on 28.3.2002 while serving on the post of Chowkidar in Circle No.2/3 at Alinagar Police Station. The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground upon the said death of his maternal grand father. Earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court by 2 filing C.W.J.C. No.12233/2004 in which he had claimed to be appointed on compassionate ground on the basis of the decision of the Government Circular dated 20.12.1995 and the writ petition was disposed of by remitting the matter to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gaya for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the Government’s decision dated 20.12.1995 with a further direction upon the said committee to communicate to the petitioners in writing within 12 weeks of the service of a copy of the order whether on the basis of the said decision of the Government, the petitioners are entitled to have the claim of the petitioner No.2 for being appointed on compassionate ground for his maternal grand father has died in harness is considerable or not and if not, why not. This Court in an earlier decision dated 27. 8.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6997 of 2003: Raj Kumar Gupta alias Harihar Das .Vs. The State of Bihar and others had clearly held that the Circular dated 20.12.1995 apparently is contrary to the earlier Circular dated 17.1.1990 and is patently bad and cannot be allowed to stand and accordingly, it was quashed. The State government was again directed to observe its Circular dated 17.1.1990 in the matter of appointment of Chowkidars and Dafadars. In the said case also the appointment had been claimed by the grand son of the Chowkidar. The reason stated by this Court in the said decision was that by its decision dated 17.1.1990, the State government had declared the Chowkidar and Dafadar as class-IV Government servants with effect from 1.1.1990 and, therefore, they would be entitled to the same service conditions as other Government 3 employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue before this Court on the basis of an earlier Circular dated 19.11.1994 (Annexure-6) in which the provisions had been made that in case of death of the Chowkidar, if among his dependents there is no son or daughter then among his nominees one person being the nephew (Bhatija) or Nati (grand son) could be appointed on compassionate ground. The aforesaid stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the stand taken in the earlier round of litigation in C.W.J.C.No.12233/2004 where the claim was made on the basis of Circular dated 20.12.1995. It is evident that the Circular dated 20.12.1995, which contains similar provisions, has already been quashed by this Court and the quashing of the same would have the same effect upon the similar Circular issued by the Home ( Police ) Department dated 19.11.1994 on the said point and the same would also be treated as having been quashed. As held by this Court in its earlier decision dated 27.8.2003 in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta alias Harihar Das ( supra ), once the Chowkidar and Dafadar have been declared to be class-IV employees under the State government by the Circular dated 17.1.1990 with effect from 1.1.1990, which provided that their selection, appointment, superannuation would be the same as are applicable to other Government servants then it is not open to create separate conditions in such matters with respect to them, even in the matter 4 relating to compassionate appointment of their dependents. In the Circular of the State Government, which has been issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and which applies to each and every category of the State Government employees as stated therein, no provision has been made for the appointment of nephew (Bhatija) and Nati ( Daughter’s son) and, therefore, on that ground also, the different provisions with respect to Chowkidar and Dafadar made in the Circulars of Home (Police) Department appear to be wholly uncalled for and discriminatory. No satisfactory reason has been assigned by the State Government as to under what circumstances, the said provision is required to be made only with respect to the dependents of Chowkidar and Dafadar. In any view of the matter, since Circular dated 20.12.1995 has already been struck down by this Court, there can be no occasion for the State Government to apply the Circular dated 19.11.1994, which makes similar provisions. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)