IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.263 of 2006 KAUSHALYA DEVI wife of Later Pannong Bhushan tiwari, resident of Village Dhanha, P.S.-Semari, Distt. Buxar. . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Patna. 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Collectorate Campus, Patna. 5. Director District Rural Development Agency, District Patna. . . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner: M/s Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Vijay Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, AC to GP 13. For the D.R.D.A.: Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 13/ 04.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 04.07.2005, as contained in Annexure-10, issued by Commissioner-cum-Secretary Rural Development Department, Bihar whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that employees serving in District Rural Development Agency cannot be equated with Government employee. It has been stated in the aforesaid impugned order that District Rural Development Agency is a registered body and as such it cannot be said to be a functionary of the Government itself. On the recommendation of Bihar Subordinate Services Selection Board, the petitioner’s husband late Pannag Bhushan Tiwari was appointed as Block Extension Officer vide Memo no. 7476 dated 14.07.1987, issued by Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar I. The name of the husband of petitioner figured at serial no. 65 of the gradation list. The service of petitioner’s husband was allotted to District Rural Development Agency, Patna. It is not in dispute that - 2 - petitioner’s husband died in harness on 15.05.2000. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in prescribed format before the Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Level Compassionate Committee along with several others recommended the case of petitioner for appointment on Class-III. However, as no post in Class-III was available in District Rural Development Agency, the petitioner was not appointed and matter remained pending. The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 14919 of 2001 and this Court directed the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner one way or the other. Thereafter the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petitioner’s case as her husband was not considered a Government servant. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order and contended that her husband died a government employee. He submits that appointment of only government servant is made by Public Service Commission or by the Sub-ordinate Selection Board. He further submits that the very fact that the District Establishment Committee made recommendation for compassionate appointment in lieu of his death was also a proof of the fact that the petitioner’s husband was treated all along as Government servant. Learned counsel submits that similarly situated one Prabha Kumari Jaiswal, wife of late Hari Narayan Jaysawal, was appointed on compassionate ground on his death. Aforesaid Hari Narayan Jayswal too died while working as Block Extension Officer, District Rural Development Agency. By referring Annexure-13, petitioner submits that Government - 3 - has issued notification on 05.12.2008 wherein it has taken a decision to treat a person working as Block Extension Officer and Statistical Supervisor in D.R.D.A. as Government servant. Counsel for the State submitted that aforesaid notification dated 05.12.2008 containing Rules, 2008 would apply to employees, who were in service on the date of notification. However, in reply to the aforesaid submission, petitioner produced Government resolution bearing no. 6479 dated 27.07.2009 which treated Block Extension Officer and Statistical Supervisor as Government employees retrospectively from the date of their initial appointments. The Block Extension Officer (Commerce Cadre Rules, 2008) equated the Block Extension Officer and Statistical Supervisor in service at par with government servant. However, to clarify any misgivings from the date it would become effective, the Government issued another resolution stating therein that such employees would be treated as Government servants from the date of their appointment. Thus, the Government notification bearing Memo no. 15736 dated 05.12.2008 and resolution bearing memo no. 6479 dated 27.07.2009, equate Block Extension Officer and Statistical Supervisor of D.R.D.A. at par with government servant from the date of joining itself. The petitioner’s husband, who was appointed as Block Extension Officer would also be entitled to be treated at par with Government servant. Thus, the impugned order rejecting the consideration of appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground holding that petitioner’s husband could not be equated at par with government servant - 4 - is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Rural Development Department for consideration of the matter in the light of the notification bearing Memo no. 15736 dated 05.12.2008 read with resolution bearing memo no. 6479 dated 27.07.2009. A copy of the resolution dated 27.07.2009, produced by the petitioner is being kept on record. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)