IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12987 of 2005 SANJAY PRIYADARSHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Narayan Mr. Gyan Prakash For the State: Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma J.C. to Standing Counsel No.X -- 7. 8.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of Memo No.487 dated 31.3.2003 issued by the District Development Officer, Chapra, by which the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected and for consequential directions. The short facts of the case are that both the petitioner’s father, Chandra Gokhula Prasad Srivastava and his mother, Shanti Devi, were in Government service. The mother was a teacher in Police Bal Primary School, Chapra and she died on 23.1.1998 in harness leaving behind the petitioner and three daughters. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for being appointed on compassionate ground claiming that he was the only male member to look after his mother and sisters since the deceased mother has been deserted by his father in the year 1987. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.3.2003 on the ground that in terms of the Circular of the Government, no appointment on compassionate ground can be made, if the husband and wife are both in Government service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an enquiry was made by the Halka Karamchari, who has reported to the 2 Circle Officer that the petitioner was living separately from his father and as many as six persons appeared before him in course of enquiry and they said that the petitioner was living separately from his father, Chand Gokhla Prasad Shrivastava during the life time of his mother herself. It was further reported by the Circle Inspector that on enquiry, he found that the father of the petitioner was living separately from his wife during her life time and it had also come during the course of enquiry that the father had illicit relationship with another woman. It is also the contention of the petitioner that after the death of his mother, his father had withdrawn all the pensionary dues of his late mother, on learning about which the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 84 of 2001 in the Court of the Munsif- Ist, Chapra, which was decreed on compromise on 19.1.2002, by which the defendant father had agreed to refund all the pensionary and other dues illegally withdrawn by him to the petitioner and had also stated that he had no objection if the service on the basis of compassionate ground is given to the petitioner and further that the amount of pension will also be given in future to the petitioner. It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of both his parents being in Government service since the father was living separately for a long period of time before the death of his mother and after the death of his mother, the petitioner and his sisters were in dire financial need. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the 3 petitioner that both the father and mother were separately drawing their House Rent Allowance which also goes to show that the mother had been deserted by the father of the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Bharat Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. : 1998 (1) PLJR 125, Jyoti Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors. : 2005 (4) PLJR 507 and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakas Prasad Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others : (2005) 10 SCC 289. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order on the basis of condition No. ( Anga) laid down in Memo No. 13993 dated 5.10.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, wherein it is stated that where both the husband and wife are in Government service and one of them died then in such circumstances, the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given to any of the dependents of their family. It is, thus, submitted that the order has rightly been passed and no exception has been made in the case of such Government servants, who were separate during their life time. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and by this Court that compassionate appointment being based upon the principle of descent is opposed to the right to equality 4 guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution in regard to public employment wherein any such public employment on the ground of descent is prohibited. However, the compassionate appointment has been permitted as an exception to the said rule on the sole ground that the family of the deceased employee is undergoing financial hardship and to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee in terms of relevant Circulars, Rules or executive instructions that may be issued by the Government and not contrary to or beyond what is provided therein. Since the Government Circular makes absolute prohibition for compassionate appointment in a case where both the husband and wife are in Government service on the death of one of them, the authorities have rightly held that no such compassionate appointment shall be granted to any of their dependents. On the facts also this Court finds that there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that prior to the death of mother of the petitioner on 23.1.1998, there was any document available in the Government or any intimation was sent in regard to the petitioner’s father and mother living separately on account of any dispute between them due to illicit relation of the petitioner’s father with another woman. So far as the claim regarding payment of House Rent Allowance is concerned, no such conclusion can be drawn as no correspondence has been brought on the record by the petitioner to show that the matter had been raised by the employer of the petitioner’s mother 5 that she was not entitled to get House Rent Allowance and thereafter on the ground that she was living separately from her husband, the same was paid to her and merely payment of House Rent Allowance to the mother of the petitioner cannot have any relevance for the decision of the present matter nor lead to the irresistible conclusion that she was, as a matter of fact, living separately. It is further surprising that if the petitioner’s father was living separately from her mother for such a long period of time then the claim for her pensionary dues was not made by the petitioner and his sisters, rather it is the father who had claimed the entire dues. Even the Title Suit, upon which reliance is placed, has been filed much later in the year 2001 and the same had been immediately compromised on the terms and conditions being totally laden in favour of the petitioner and no benefit being claimed in the compromise petition by the father of the petitioner. All these documents raise strong suspicion of the same being a collusive suit solely for obtaining appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. So far as the reports of the Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector are concerned, the same also cannot be relied upon in the prevailing condition in the State. With regard to the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of Bharat Prasad (supra) was a matter in which two sons of the deceased employee were in Government service and another son had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. In such situation, this Court had held that the same would not debar the son from 6 applying, as there was nothing in the Government Circular preventing the appointment on compassionate ground in such circumstances; the said case does not have any relevance so far as the present matter is concerned. In the case of Jyoti Kumari ( supra ) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has held that in view of the relevant provisions when both the husband and wife are in Government service and one of the employees dies while the other remains in employment, then no benefit of compassionate appointment can be given to any of the dependents of the deceased employee, but if one of the spouse had already retired then the said clause in the Circular would not be at all applicable and in that situation it would be open for the dependent of the deceased employee to make claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The said case also does not support the case of the petitioner in which both the husband and wife were in Government service on the date of death of the mother. Lastly, reliance placed upon the case of Govind Prakash Prasad Verma ( supra) also cannot help the petitioner since in that case the issue was totally different as to whether carrying on cultivation can be considered as gainful employment and also as to whether the family pension paid to the widow of the deceased can be taken into account for the purpose of considering financial hardship. The same has also no relevance in the present matter. Thus on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, 7 accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)