IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15705 of 2007 Most. Parwati Devi, wife of late Lakhichand Mandal, resident of Village Belha, P.S. Phulparas, District Madhubani. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Compassionate Appointment Committee under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani. 4. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Darbhanga. 5. Superintending Engineer, West Kosi Canal Circle Jay Nagar in the district of Madhubani. 6. Executive Engineer, West Kosi Canal Division, Khajauli in the district of Madhubani. -------- Respondents With CWJC No.6794 of 2008 Mohan Mandal, son of late Lakhi Chand Mandal, resident of Village Belha, P.S. Phulparas, District Madhubani. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 3. The Superintendent Engineer, West Koshi Canal Pramandal Jainagar, District Madhubani. 4. Executive Engineer, West Koshi Canal Pramandal, Khajauli, District Madhubani. --------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, Advocate For the State : A.A.G.-7 S.C.-6 -------------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORDER (20.04.2011) Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 15705 of 2007 and Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 6794 of 2008 in these two cases as also the counsel for 2 the State in the respective cases. 2. In both the writ applications the two petitioners in fact seek to achieve the same relief of appointment on compassionate ground for themselves by eliminating each other on the plea that they are dependants of sole bread earner late Lakhichand Mandal a peon in west Kosi Canal division, Khajauli (Madhubani). In CWJC No. 15705 of 2007 while the aspirant petitioner Parwati Devi is the widow of the deceased employee whereas in CWJC No. 6794 of 2008, the petitioner Mohan Mandal is the son of the deceased employee from his first predeceased wife Galab Devi. 3. Mr. Kumar, while supporting the case of the widow petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground, would submit that there should be no difficulty in the appointment of the petitioner Parwati Devi inasmuch as, she, being the wife of the deceased employee, has a first right of consideration for appointment on compassionate ground specially when she is also fully eligible for such appointment. Mr. Kumar for this purpose also places reliance 3 on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shabana Begum Vs. The Bank of Baroda & Ors. reported in 2001(1)PLJR 814, wherein, it has been held that in a scheme for providing compassionate appointment on preferential basis, the wife of the deceased employee, even by way of her second marriage, shall have a better claim in comparison to any other dependant including a son from either the first marriage or second marriage. 4. Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, learned counsel for the son of the deceased employee from the first wife would submit that though there would be no quarrel on the aforesaid settled position in law but, then, the factual scenario wherein the petitioner Parwati Devi has received the entire death- cum-retirement benefit of the deceased employee, would make the petitioner Mohan Mandal eligible for such appointment as he and his two brothers being dependent children from the first wife of the deceased employee are themselves in a helpless situation to support themselves. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court the contention of Mr. Kumar has to be 4 accepted inasmuch as the Government of Bihar's policy of compassionate appointment as contained in circular dated 5.10.1991 clearly lays down the priority in which the dependant of the deceased Government servant dying in harness would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. To that extent, paragraph no.1 and 2 of the policy reads as follows:- ^^¼1½ fdudk p;u gks ldrk gS% ¼d½ vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk oSls e`r ljdkjh lsod ds ,d gh vkfJr dks vuqekU; gksxk ftudh e`R;w lsok dky esa gqbZ gS ¼[k½ bl gsrq ljdkjh lsod mls gh ekuk tk;sxk ftldh fu;qfDr] Lohd`r in ds fo:) fof/kor dh xbZ gksA ¼x½ lsok dky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dks gh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dh tk ldrh gSA vkfJr ds vUrxZr dsoy iRuh] iq=] vfookfgr iq=h rFkk iq= dh fo/kok iRuh lfEefyr jgsxhA nrd iq=] nkekn] Hkrhtk] vkfn dks vkfJr ugha ekuk tk;sxkA ¼?k½ vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr izkFkfedrk ds vuqlkj fdlh ,d vkfJr dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxh%& ¼1½ e`r lsod dh iRuhA ¼2½ iq=A ¼3½ vfookfgr iq=hA ¼4½ iq= dh fo/kok iRuhA ¼M+½ ;fn ifr&iRuh nksuks ljdkjh lsok esa gksa vkSj fdlh ,d dh e`R;w gks tk; rks oSlh fLFkfr esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk muds ifjokj ds fdlh vkfJr dks ugha feysxkA ¼p½ ;fn dksbZ efgyk ljdkjh lsok esa gks vkSj muds 5 ifr fdlh ljdkjh lsok esa dk;Zjr ugha gks rks efgyk ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q mijkUr muds ifr dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk izkIr gks ldsxkA ¼2½ fdudk p;u ugha gks ldrk gS %& fuEukafdr dksfV;ksa esa ls fdlh Hkh dksfV esa vkusokys O;fDr dk vkosnu izkjafHkd rkSj ij gh vLohd`r dj fn;k tk;sxk] ;fn [k.M ^[k* vkSj ^x* ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ izfrdwy 'kiFk&i= ugha fn;k x;k gksA ¼d½ ;fn vkosnd ds izLrkfor in gsrq ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr vgZrk izkIr ugha gksA ijUrq efgyk ds ekeys esa lkbZfdy pykus dh vgZrk dks {kakr le>k tk;sxkA ¼[k½ ;fn vkosnd dks fdlh laKs; vijk/k ds vijk/kh ds :i esa U;wure 6 ekg ds dkjkokl dk n.M gqvk gSA ¼x½ ;fn vkosnd ij ,slk eqdnek U;k;ky; ds fopkjk/khu gks ftlesa mUgsa e`R;w n.M vFkok lkr o"kZ ls vf/kd ds dkjkokl dh ltk fn;s tkus dh lEHkkouk gks] vFkok mDr okn ds fuLrkj gksus ij ;fn vkosnd dks 6 ekg vFkok mlls vf/kd dk n.M fn;k tk;A** (underlining for emphasis) will leave nothing for speculation that only one dependant of the deceased Government servant is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid policy further clarifies that in the category of the dependants would also include son, unmarried daughter and the widow of the pre-deceased son to the exclusion of adopted son, son-in- law and nephew etc. It is thereafter that the policy lays down the priority of appointment 6 among the dependants wherein the first priority ¼izkFkfedrk½ has been given to the wife of the deceased employee followed by son, unmarried daughter and widow of the pre- deceased son respectively in that order. Thus paragraph 1¼d½, ¼x½ and ¼?k½ of the aforesaid circular if read together will itself to one and only conclusion that in a case where both the wife and the son would be applicant for appointment on compassionate ground, the first preference has to be given to the wife. This aspect of the matter in relation to the scheme in the Bank Service was considered by this Court in the case of Shabana Begum (supra) wherein it was held that even in case of a dispute between the wife and the son for getting compassionate appointment, the wife of deceased employee being the first prioritized dependent, will have a preferential claim of being considered for appointment as against the son of the deceased. 6. Thus, when there is a similar scheme also in the State Government of Bihar, this Court will have no hesitation in holding that 7 it is the wife of the deceased government servant who will have the first right of being considered for appointment on compassionate ground to any other dependant namely son or unmarried daughter or widow of the pre-deceased son. It must be clarified that there would be no different in the status of second wife of the deceased employee inasmuch as if such second marriage was performed by the deceased employee after death of his first wife, the second wife will be the only wife in terms of dependent of the deceased employee as categorized in the government policy contained in circular dated 5.10.1991. 7. When these cases were listed earlier and it was found that the two petitioners namely, the wife and the son from the first wife were claming compassionate appointment by excluding each other, a consensus was sought to be arrived at for achieving the object of compassionate appointment with a view to provide means of sustenance for all the dependent family members of the deceased government servant i.e. the husband of the 8 petitioner Parvati Devi and the father of petitioner Mohan Mandal. Today such a consensus has emerged amongst all the parties and learned counsel for the petitioner Mohan Mandal has sought to give up the claim of petitioner Mohan Mandal for his appointment on compassionate ground on a condition that he too being the dependant of the deceased employee along with his two other brothers all being sons of the first wife of the deceased employee, would be supported by the petitioner Parwati Devi, their step mother. 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner Parwati Devi, on being employed on compassionate ground, has to do her duty at the assigned place of posting and cannot stay together with the petitioner Mohan Mandal and his two brothers under the same roof, it has been also jointly proposed by the counsel for both the petitioners that 1/3rd of salary of the step mother Parwati Devi will be credited in the bank account of Mohan Mandal and his two brothers namely, Hari Narayan Mandal and Narayan Mandal by way of extending them financial support in capacity of being 9 dependants of the deceased employee. 9. Based on the aforementioned consensus between the parties, this Court, taking into account that the learned Counsel for the State has got no objection in appointing Parwati Devi on compassionate ground, for whom in fact such a decision by way of recommendation of the Compassionate Appointment Committee has already been made and appointment letter to her could not be issued due to the dispute raised by the petitioner Mohan Mandal, would therefore direct for disposal of both the writ applications with the following directions:- (i) Mostt. Parwati Devi, being the only wife of the deceased employee on the date of death of the deceased employee, shall be appointed on compassionate ground within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (ii) The competent Drawing and Disbursing Officer shall deduct 1/3rd of salary and emoluments from monthly pay bill of Mostt. Parvati Devi and the same shall 10 be deposited in a joint bank account of all the three sons of the deceased employee from his first wife, namely, Hari Narayan Mandal, Narayan Mandal and Mohan Mandal for its being apportioned and paid to them in equal share. (iii) Such arrangement shall continue till the three sons of the deceased employee from the first wife of deceased employee i.e. petitioner Mohan Mandal and his two brothers Hari Narayan Mandal and Narayan Mandal would get settled by way of getting an employment or would voluntarily give up of their respective share of amount in the monthly salary of the petitioner Parvati Devi. 10. Let a copy of the said order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department for its strict compliance. Patna High Court Dated the 20th April 2011 A.F.R./Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)