IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6367 of 2008 RENU DEVI, W/O LATE RAM JANAM SHARMA, A FOURTH GRADE EMPLOYEE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 24 ADARSH BIHAR COLONY, BAILEY ROAD, RUKANPURA, P.S.SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA- 14. ............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTH BIHAR, MUZAFFARPUR. 4.THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 5.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. .............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 22.04.2011 The petitioner claiming to be the dependent wife of the deceased employee Ram Janam Sharma, who is said to have died in harness on 12.07.2004, has filed this writ petition for a direction to consider her application for appointment on compassionate ground dated 09.08.2004 filed before the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Vaishali at Hazipur as according to her no action has been taken thereon at least to her knowledge. Counsel for the State as usual has no instruction and has also not filed any counter affidavit. He however, has tried to read between the lines of the averments made in the writ application for making his 2 submission that the peritioner had not filed her application in the prescribed proforma as laid down in the Government policy dated 05.10.1991. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ application cannot be disposed of on a mere guess work of the counsel for the State and at least no firm direction can be given as with regard to allowing the claim of the petitioner. Unfortunately the petitioner also has not helped her cause and has made no averment as to whether her husband was working against a sanctined post and his appointment had been made in the prescribed manner which had to be clarified by her because she has herself enclosed an order of this Court dated 08.05.2003 in the writ application filed by the husband of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. NO. 4350 of 2003, showing that the husband of the petitioner had not been receiving payment of salary since February 1996. That by itself would therefore, create some sort of an impression that there was something bad in the appointment of the history of the husband of the petitioner on account of which he had 3 been deprived payment of salary for a long period of more than seven years. The policy in the circular dated 5.10.1991 however clearly lays down that in order to make eligible for appointment on compassionate ground the dependent must be ward of such a government servant who was appointed in and agaisnt prescriebd sanctioned post. In that view of the matter, this court would direct the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioner and if there be a pending application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which till date has not been disposed of, the same must be placed before the competent authority i.e. Compassionate Appointment Committee for its final decision and the Committee must decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If however the case of the petitioner in the meantime has already been considered and rejected, he may be only informed of such decision and in that event there would be no need to again reconsider her case. It is also made clear that this Court 4 has not expressed any opinion on the merits of such claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents therefoer would be at liberty to examine the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of the Government policy dated 05.10.1991, as updated from time to time and dispose of the same within the aforesaid period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)