IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18030 of 2008 SUJIT RANJAN, S/O LATE PREM SHANKAR VERMA, R/O MOHALLA-BAGMALI GACHI, P.S.-HAJIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ADULT AND NON- FORMAL EDUCATION (NOW KNOWN AS DIRECTORATE OF MAN EDUCATION) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MASS EDUCATION OFFICER, SARAN AT CHAPRA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 16.03.2011 Petitioner’s father was engaged by the respondents in the Adult Education Project. After some time the respondents decided to close the project and, therefore, the services of employees engaged in the project were terminated. The employees filed writ applications against their termination orders. However, during the pendency of the matter in this Court the said termination orders were cancelled by the respondents on their own and the employees were adjusted under Non-Formal Education Wing of the Department. But, after some time a common termination order was again issued in 2001 terminating the services of all such employees who had come in the Wing from the 2 Adult Education Project. The said termination order was challenged by the Association of the employees in CWJC No.13009 of 2001 and 14472 of 2001. While the said two writ applications were pending, some of the individual employees moved this Court in individual capacity and in their respect various orders were passed, as contained in Annexure-9 series. The State Government moved in appeal also, but without success. While all this was going on, petitioner’s father died on 11.07.2004. Finally, the writ application filed by the Association was taken up by the Division Bench and the order dated 25.4.2008 disposing of the said writ applications are Annexure-C with the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Association had moved in 2001 itself the father of the petitioner would be deemed to be represented by the Association. He submits that the Division Bench has noticed that the State Government had issued some letters during the pendency of the writ application reengaging all such employees. Learned counsel submits that the 3 said order of reengagement of all the employees issued by the Government is of 2006. He submits that since the common order was issued for reengagement of all employees and withdrawing the common termination order, the father of the petitioner would be deemed to have been reinstated in service, since the termination order in his respect also vanished. Hence, the result will be that the father of the petitioner would be deemed to have continued in service till his death. Hence, he should be taken as having died in harness and, therefore, petitioner should be held entitled for compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner was terminated in 2001. Since 2001 up to 2004 when he died he was out of service. It is not asserted that he was a petitioner before this Court in any of the writ application in individual capacity and there is nothing on record to show that the father of the petitioner had approached this Court in individual capacity before his death in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to derive benefit from the order 4 passed in the case of Association in 2008 in which it has been noticed that the State Government had decided to reengage all such employees, which decision, as per his own admission, was in 2006 i.e. much after the death of the father of the petitioner. On the basis of that order of reengagement, it is too much for this Court to accept that the father of the petitioner would be deemed to have been reinstated from the date of his termination and to have died in harness to make the petitioner entitled for compassionate appointment. This Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)