IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12240 of 2001 VIJAY KUMAR, son of late Rabindra Prasad Singh, resident of village Neemi, P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, District Shekhpura … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (Primary Education), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. District Superintendent of Education, Jamui 4. Area Officer (Education), Jamui 5. Headmaster, Middle School, Sabalbigha, Sikandra, District Jamui 6. Neelam Kumari, D/o late Pitambari Singh, W/o Ramanuj Singh, resident of village Dumrama, P.S. Pakri Barama, District Nawada … Respondents with CWJC No.13936 of 2001 NILAM KUMARI, wife of late Ravindra Prasad Singh, resident of village Nimi, P.S. Shekhopur Sarai, District Shekhpura … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Jamui 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui, Bihar 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamui 6. Vijay Kumar, son of late Rabindra Pd. Singh, resident of village Neemi, P.S. Sekhopur Sarai, District Shekhpura … Respondents ----------- 4. 31.8.2010 C.W.J.C.No. 13936/2001 After some argument counsel for the petitioner realizing the difficulty in respect of the following prayer made in this writ application: “This application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs direction/ directions to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the 2 compassionate ground on the post of teacher in Elementary school in the district of Jamui.” that the death of her alleged husband is 1.12.1998 and there is specific counter affidavit of the respondent Collector of Jamui District that the petitioner had not filed any application in the prescribed format as per policy of the State Government, would seek permission to withdraw this application. That being so, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. It is, however, made clear that withdrawal of this application in no way would affect the right of the petitioner to claim retirement benefit which was made subject matter of second writ petition, C.W.J.C.No. 12240/2001, and has to be governed by the order passed hereunder. C.W.J.C.No. 12240/2001 Having heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also counsel for respondent no.6 this Court would find that the following relief prayed by the petitioner in this application: 3 “(I) Issuance of an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in Government service on compassionate grounds in place of his father for which the petitioner’s elder brother Ajay Kumar Singh has given it in writing to the concerned authorities time and again. (II) Issuance of an appropriate writ of mandamus or order or direction commanding/ asking the respondents not to give any appointment, compassionate or otherwise, to the lady named Neelam Kumari (respondent no.6) who is claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner’s father Rabindra Prasad Singh but without disclosing as to when, where and how she got married to him when she was already married to another person and when even the petitioner’s father was married to the petitioner’s mother Smt. Shail Devi and from that marriage of Rabindra Prasad Singh and Shail Devi their two sons, the petitioner and Ajay Kumar Singh are already there as their heirs.” can be only given to the petitioner provided he had filed an application in the prescribed proforma within the period of 4 five years of the death of his father as per Government circular of the year 1991 and subsequently also clarified in the year 1995. In fact there is no clear averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had filed such an application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground and an in direct reference as sought to be relied in paragraph 7 would not be an evidence of the fact that the petitioner had filed an application as prescribed for compassionate appointment and that too in the proforma as laid down by the Personnel and Administration Reforms Department of the Govt. of Bihar. It is made clear that the claim to the retirement benefit of the father of the petitioner or alleged husband of respondent no.6 is entirely different matter and has not to be mixed up with the case of appointment on compassionate ground which is only by way of grace to the members of the family of the deceased for their immediate survival. Therefore, if no such application was filed by the petitioner and now respondent no.6 has also given up her claim 5 Surendra/ for appointment by withdrawing her writ petition, C.W.J.C.No. 13936/2001, the State will not be bound to appoint any person as a matter of right after 12 years of the death of bread earner, the father of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court would direct the District Superintendent of Education to find out from his records as to whether there was an application filed by the petitioner within a period of five years and if such application was filed he would also record reasons for not sending the same to the Collector of the District within the prescribed period. It is made clear that whatever application was filed by the petitioner for the purposes of compassionate appointment exclusively may be traced out and be sent to the office of the Collector for its being placed before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for taking its own decision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 6