IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6669 of 2006 MOST.PRAMILA DEVI, w/o late Daya Nand Prasad, resident of Bhirkhi, Ward No.10, District- Madhepura…. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director, Finance Department 3. Collector, Saharsa 4. Deputy Commissioner, Saharsa 5. Sales Tax Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: Ms. Mallika Mazumdar,Advocate For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P.1 ----- 10. 8.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is the second round of litigation in which the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for grant of compassionate appointment on the death of her husband late Daya Nand Prasad Yadav, who is stated to have died on 19.11.1994. Earlier, the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No.4244 of 2003, which was disposed of by order dated 7.7.2003 observing that if the husband of the petitioner held substantive appointment against a sanctioned post and her case stands on par as Veena Kumari, her case should be considered and decision in this regard taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the same an order bearing memo No.522 dated 13.2.2006 has been passed by the - 2 - Commissioner, Commercial Taxes-cum- Secretary, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after holding that no proof is available to show that the appointment of late Daya Nand Prasad Yadav was legal and in terms of the Circular No.13293 dated 5.10.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, the appointment on compassionate ground can only be given to the dependents of validly appointed Government servants. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order and findings of the Commercial Taxes Commissioner pointing out that after the death of the petitioner’s husband death- cum- retiral benefits have been granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons as the husband of the petitioner had approached this Court seeking confirmation on Class-IV post and also to get time bound promotion on the ground that similarly situated persons were confirmed and then promoted on Class-III post. Their writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No.6176/2000, was allowed by order dated 16.2.2004 and ultimately the matter was taken to the Supreme - 3 - Court by the State of Bihar by filing Civil Appeal No.1597 of 2006 after the L.P.A. preferred by the State of Bihar was dismissed. The Apex Court also directed similarly situated employees (respondents before it) to be confirmed in their services as Class-IV employees and further that they shall be granted time bound promotion with effect from the date on which the similarly situated employees were granted such promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the widow, Veena Kumari, of a similarly situated employee had also been appointed on compassionate ground and the said fact was specifically referred to in the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by this Court on the last occasion, but there is no reference to it in the order of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes –cum Secretary. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that the said order is fit to be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is - 4 - stated that a High Power Committee was constituted to examine the legality and propriety of the appointments made in the years 1979,1980 and 1981 respectively in the Commercial Taxes Department. The said Committee submitted its report and accordingly a memorandum was sent to the Cabinet Secretariat seeking approval of the Council of Ministers but final decision in this regard has not yet been taken. The said affidavit was sworn on 21.7.2009 and learned counsel for the State submits that till date no decision has been taken in the matter. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order dated 13.2.2006 of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes cannot stand in view of the history of the litigation in these matters and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Manjhi and others. There is not even a whisper on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioner’s husband stands on any different footing from the case of those persons, except that the husband of the petitioner was not a party before the Supreme Court. Once the matter has been settled at every stage by a decision of this Court - 5 - both by a learned single Judge and a Division Bench as also of the Supreme Court, it is unfair for the authorities of the State to force every employee to pursue the path of litigation. In the above circumstances, the order contained in memo No.522 dated 13.2.2006 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-cum-Secretary is quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground treating the case of the petitioner at par with that of Veena Kumari, widow of Sahdeo Mishra, if she is otherwise qualified for the same in accordance with law. Let the same be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )