IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.414 of 2007 VIBHISHAN SINGH, S/O LATE JAKIRA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-INDRAPURI, P.S.-TILAUTHU, DISTRICT- ROHTAS (SASARAM). ……………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DEHRI, ROHTAS. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SONE CANAL MODERNISATION CIRCLE, DEHRI, ROHTAS. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SONE CANAL MODERNISATION DIVISION, SASARAM CAMP DEHRI, ROHTAS. 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 09.07.2010 Petitioner has challenged a proceeding of the District Compassionate Committee, Rohtas dated 28.09.2006 (Annexure- 17) by which the application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is adopted son of the deceased Government servant and documents in respect of his adoption has not been received from the competent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for his compassionate appointment with several documents, copies whereof are annexed as 2 Annexure-1 to 8, which clearly established that the petitioner had been adopted by the deceased Government servant long back prior to his death. Consequent to the adoption through a panchnama, as contained in Annexure-1, in all relevant documents of school etc. the name of the deceased Government servant was mentioned as father of the petitioner. He submits that these documents have not been considered by the Committee and, in fact, it is mentioned that the documents were not placed before the Committee by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon an order of a Bench of this Court dated 03.07.2009 passed in CWJC No. 14701 of 2008 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 62. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. It is not denied there that the petitioner had applied for his compassionate appointment in time enclosing all those documents, which do prima facie show that there was genuine adoption of the petitioner by the deceased Government servant. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the 3 documents produced by the petitioner in support of his adoption were properly considered by the Committee. This pleading in the counter affidavit is apparently contrary to record as evident from the impugned proceeding. This Court is of the opinion that in the light of the materials produced by the petitioner and the statements made by his learned counsel the case of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered by the Committee. Therefore, the proceeding of the District Compassionate Committee, as contained in Annexure-17, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Committee for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of materials and judgments of this Court. For easy reference, petitioner will be well advised to file a representation before the Secretary of the Committee enclosing all the documents and judgments relied upon by him, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. After submission of the application by the 4 petitioner, it is expected that the Committee will consider the case of the petitioner in its next meeting itself and take decision in accordance with law. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)