IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6802 of 2006 SMT.SABITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 12.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was granted compassionate appointment after the death of her husband, who died in harness. The issue is with regard to grant of dearness allowance on the family pension being granted to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on two orders of this Court as appended at Annexures 4 & 5 in support of the same. In the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, recipient of family pension was in service in her own individual capacity prior to the death of her husband. She was, thus, entitled to D.A. on her salary as an independent right that is the crucial distinction between the case of the petitioner and the judgment on which she relies upon. Learned counsel for the State has rightly relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 2 SCC 227 (H.S.E.B. & ors. V. Azad Kaur). Rejecting the appeal preferred by the State Electricity Board, it was noticed at paragraph 5 of the judgment as follows : “It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent secured employment on compassionate grounds as a teacher after the death of her husband. In fact, we fail to see how she could have secured any employment on compassionate grounds in a totally different service. “ - 2 - That is exactly the case presently. It has been noticed that the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground after the death of her husband. There is no merit in this writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)