IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1889 of 2006 AMARJEET JHA @ AMARJEET KR.JHA, son of late Ashok Kumar Jha, resident of village- Naya Gaon, Police Station- Bath, in the town and district of Bhagalpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Secretary, Labour and Administrative Reforms Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road Patna. 3. The I. G. Jail Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Compassionate Committee, Munger. 5. The District Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Compassionate Committee, Munger. 6. The Deputy Collector, Establishment Committee, Munger. 7. The Jail Superintendent, Munger, Sub-Jail, Munger. 8. The Jail Warden, Munger Sub Jail, Munger. … Respondents. ----------- 4. 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the impugned order dated 22.10.2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment. Let it be noted that this is second round of litigation inasmuch as the petitioner earlier after death of his father on 22.11.1997 having filed his application on 5.5.1998 and getting no order on such application had moved this Court in CWJC No. 2369/04 which was disposed of by order dated 22.11.2004 directing the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in 2 accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The impugned order in fact has been passed on 22.10.2005 wherein the solitary reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner for his being appointed reads as follows:- ^^foHkkxh; i=kad 13293 fnukad 05-10-1991 dh dafMdk ^d* ,oa ^[k* ds ds vuqlkj ^^vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij vkfJr dh fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj dk ykHk dh vuqekU;rk ds iz;kstukFkZ ljdkjh lsod mls ekuk x;k gS ^ftldh fu;qfDr Lohd`r in ds fo:n~/k fof/kor gqbZ gksA bl vkyksd esa e`r ljdkjh lsod tks rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr Fks dh e`R;q gksus ij muds vkfJr dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj dk ykHk vuqekU; ugha gSA** v/kh{kd fo'ks"k dsUnzh; dkjk] Hkkxyiqj }kjk Jh vejthr dqekj >k ds vkosnu i= ij mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd ^^rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr fd;s x;s Lo0 d{kiky Jh v'kksd dqekj >k lsok esa fu;fer fd;s tkus ds iwoZ gh e`r gks x;sA** * Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the nature of adhoc appointment of the father of the petitioner would not be the relevant factor inasmuch as the government circular dated 5.10.1991 only prescribes appointment against a sanctioned post and in the prescribed manner. He would also submit that there is no 3 finding that the father of the petitioner was not appointed in the prescribed manner and was working against an unsanctioned post. To that extent he also relies on the recommendation of the Head of Department, namely, Inspector General of Prison who in his letter no. 3767 dated 11th September 2001 had categorically mentioned that unconfirmed services of the deceased employee, father of the petitioner would not stand in the way of his dependents in getting appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the State would submit that the Inspector General of Prison had no power to override the government decision and in fact when it is beyond dispute that the appointment of the father of the petitioner was by way of ad hoc appointment, his son, petitioner would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion of this court, there is something amiss in the concept of consideration by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. The Government Circular dated 5.10.1991 does not lay down that nature of appointment or confirmation of an employee in the government service would be the deciding factor for deciding the case of the dependent employee. On the other 4 hand, the Government circular dated 5.10.1991 only talks of the person working against a sanctioned post and his appointment being in a prescribed manner. Now a sanctioned post can be either temporary or permanent depending on the nature of the job. It cannot be said that a temporary post sanctioned by the government is not a sanctioned post inasmuch as the government circular dated 5.10.1991 does not use expression ‘permanently sanctioned posts’. In that view of the matter, this Court must hold that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had failed to take into account the germane materials as per government circular dated 5.10.1991. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee has got no means to verify this fact whether the appointment of the father of the petitioner was made against sanctioned post (whether temporary or permanent) or whether such appointment of the father of the petitioner was made in the prescribed manner. Infact there is also document any proof by way of Annexure-1, P.F. Account application, to show that deductions from the salary of the father of the petitioner in the provident fund account were being made by showing him to be working against a permanent post. 5 In that view of the matter, this court would direct the Inspector General of Prisons to hold his personal enquiry as to whether the father of the petitioner was working against a temporary or permanent sanctioned post and whether the appointment of father of the petitioner was made in a prescribed manner laid down for the post of Warden. Such enquiry and the resultant report by the Inspector General of Prison must be sent to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee within a period of two months and the District Compassionate Appointment Committee must take its resultant decision depending on the finding recorded by the Inspector General of Prison in his report within a period of next one month. In the event of District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommending the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground, a final decision for his such appointment must be taken in next three months by the competent appointing authority. If however the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment is again rejected, the reasons thereof must be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of six months. 6 In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the authority for reconsidering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground strictly in accordance with law. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)