IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11472 of 2007 PUSHPA KUMARI, d/o late Mundrika Thakur, r/o Daudpur, P.O. Daudpur, P.S. Sahpur, District- Patna… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate-cum-Chairman Distt. Chairman of District Compassionate Committee (Zila Anukampa Samiti), Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Kendriya Rupankan Jal Sansadhan Vibhagh, Patna (Central) Rupankan Water Resouces Department, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Rupankan Circle, Water Resources Department, Patna. 5. Executive Engineer, Flood Control Rupankan Division No.2, Patna. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Dhirendra Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ranjit Sinha, A.C. to S.C.10 ---- 2. 30.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground. The short facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was a class IV employee under the State Government and he died while in service on 21.8.1999. Immediately after his death on 11.1.2001, the mother of the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, but her application for appointment was rejected and communicated by letter No.467 dated 9.9.2005 stating that she did not possess the minimum educational qualification of class VIII pass for being appointed on class IV post and she was - 2 - informed that if she has any son or unmarried daughter then an application along with necessary documents in support of the same as enumerated in the said letter should be submitted. Immediately thereafter the petitioner being the eldest issue and unmarried daughter of the deceased employee filed her application on 14.9.2005 for appointment on compassionate ground, which was forwarded by letter dated 22.9.2005 ( Annexure-3 ) by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. However, by letter dated 15.2.2006, of the office of the Engineer-in-Chief ( Annexure-4) the petitioner was informed that by letter No.32 dated 10.1.2006 of the District Magistrate-cum- Chairman District Compassionate Committee the proposal for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground stated in the counter affidavit for the said rejection is that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted after lapse of five years since the death of the petitioner’s father, which cannot be considered a - 3 - valid reason. Since the earliest application on behalf of the family of the deceased employee was made by the petitioner’s mother on 11.1.2001 itself within a year and half of the death of the petitioner’s father, the application of the petitioner ought to have been considered as a continuance of the said earlier application. It is further submitted that there was absolutely no delay on the part of the petitioner in making the application, which was made within five days of the letter dated 9.9.2005, by which the rejection of the application of the petitioner’s mother was communicated by the authorities. It is urged that the delay, if any, has been on the part of the authorities, who took nearly five years’ time in rejecting the application of the petitioner’s mother and there was never any laches on the part of the petitioner or her mother in making the application for appointment on compassionate ground. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Khadim vs. State of Bihar & others : (2006) 9 SCC - 4 - 195, in paragraph No.6 of which it has been held as follows: “As the widow had submitted the application in time the authorities should have considered her application. As eleven years have passed she would not be in a position to join the government service. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State could not point out any other circumstance for which the appellant would be disentitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the appellant and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time at least within a period of three months. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No - 5 - costs.” Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner having applied beyond the period of five years prescribed by the Government Circular for appointment on compassionate ground, the authorities have rightly rejected her claim for compassionate appointment. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay. It is evident that the deceased was a class IV Government employee and his widow is an illiterate person. On his death he left behind his widow, the present petitioner who was aged only 19 years at that time, another daughter who was aged about 14 years and his son who was aged about 8 years. In the said circumstances it was for the authorities to have acted with promptitude in the matter and considered the case for compassionate appointment to enable the dependents of the deceased employee to meet the financial crisis which had been - 6 - caused on the death of the sole bread earner but instead of doing so they simply sat over the matter and intimated an order of rejection after nearly five years of the application filed, which application had been filed well within the required time as prescribed by the Government Circular. The ground for rejection also was solely that the widow did not possess the minimum qualification for compassionate appointment on class IV post. The petitioner immediately after receipt of the letter dated 9.9.2005 in respect of rejection of her mother’s application, within five days had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is, thus, evident that there was no delay on the part of the family of the deceased employee in pursuing the matter relating to compassionate appointment. It is the authorities who have acted in a most callous and inconsiderate manner. It has to be understood that appointment on compassionate ground is meant for the benefit of the family of the deceased employee, which is unable to meet the financial crisis and in that circumstance a job is to be offered to an eligible member of the deceased’s family. The fact that the widow of the - 7 - deceased employee was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2001 itself when the application was filed was well known to the authorities and had they acted with promptitude then the petitioner would have been informed about rejection of the case of her mother, much before the five year deadline; hence no such technical plea of delay can be taken by the authorities at this stage. In the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that the family of the deceased employee had applied for compassionate appointment within the timeframe allowed and it was only on account of delay caused by the authorities that subsequent application by a well qualified member of the family for compassionate appointment was filed after the expiry of the period of five years prescribed for filing such application. However, such an application as held by the Apex Court in the much worse case of Syed Khadim (supra) ought to have been treated as in continuance of the application of the widow of the deceased employee who is the mother of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the writ - 8 - application is allowed. The order dated 14.2.2006 (Annexure-4) as also the letter dated 1.2.2006 of the District Magistrate-cum- Chairman District Compassionate Committee, Patna are quashed and the authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits without taking into account the question of delay within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )