IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11607 of 2010 1. AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE AVINASH KUMAR R/O VILL.- MOHALLA- BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT NEAR SHRI KRISHNA SINGH WOMENS COLLEGE, P.S.- CHHATAUNI, P.O.- MOTIHARI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR RAJYA POOL NIRMAN NIGAM LTD. BIHAR, PATNA, 7, SARDAR PATEL MARG, PATNA-15 3. THE SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, BIHAR RAJYA POOL NIRMAN NIGAM LTD. WORK DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE BIHAR RAJYA POOL NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., 7 SARDAR PATEL MARG, PATNA-15 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR RAJYA POOL NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., 7 SARDAR PATEL MARG, PATNA-15 For the petitioner : M/s. S.P.Srivastava, Rajiv Ranjan, Advocates. For the Corporation : M/s P.K.Sahi, Sr. Adv., Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi, Advocate. ----------- 06. 14.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2010, Annexure-6 by which his representation for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of order dated 18.9.2009, Annexure-3, itself it will appear that appointments have been made in the corporation on compassionate ground but the case of the petitioner has been rejected, although decision not to grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employees of the Corporation was taken in the 141st meeting of the corporation and prior thereto father of the petitioner died on 29.9.2007. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the Corporation that true it is that compassionate appointment was made in the Corporation until 2000, although there was no policy decision ever taken by the Board - 2 - of the Corporation to grant such appointment. When such mistake was detected no appointment on compassionate ground has been made in the Corporation after 2000. It is also submitted on behalf of the Corporation that dependents of the employees of the Corporation who died in harness after 2000 i.e. from 2001 onwards have been allowed ex gratia payment including the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the aforesaid submission. He states that he is trying to obtain documents under the Right to Information Act to dispute the contention of the counsel for the Corporation that compassionate appointment has not been granted to anyone in the Corporation after 2000, as also the fact that circular of State providing for grant of compassionate appointment has not been adopted by the Corporation and petitioner be allowed liberty to question the order dated 8.4.2010, Annexure-6 in the light of the information which he shall obtain under the Right to Information Act. 6. For the present there is nothing on record by which stand of the Corporation that it has not accepted the policy of the State Government to grant compassionate appointment to the dependent of its employees who died in harness is available on record. In the circumstances, the writ petition challenging the order dated 8.4.2010, Annexure-6 cannot proceed and is accordingly, disposed of, however with the liberty aforesaid. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)