IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13713 of 2007 BIJENDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMSHARAN RAM, R/O VILLAGE-TERI, P.S.-MEHANDIA, DISTRICT-ARWAL. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,i.e.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR. 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAUGACHHIA, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ………………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 08.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected only because his elder brother is said to be employed in Indian Army. As per the Government circular dated 05.10.1991, and its updation till date, the disqualification for appointment on compassionate ground is based on certain criteria and none of them include mere employment of one family member in service to be a ground for rejecting the case of the other person seeking appointment on compassionate ground. To that extent the Government circular dated 05.10.1991, is very specific wherein it has been stated as 2 follows:- ¼M-½ ;fn ifr iRuh nksuks ljdkjh lsok esa gks vkSj fdlh ,d dh e`R;q gks tk;s rks oSlh fLFkfr esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk muds ifjokj ds fdlh vkfJr dks ugha feysxkA ¼p½ ;fn dksbZ efgyk ljdkjh lsok esa gks vkSj muds ifr fdlh ljdkjh lsok esa dk;Zjr ugha gksa] rks efgyk ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q mijkUr muds ifr dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk izkIr gks ldsxkA There being no similar restriction as with regard to any other family member being in service, as a bar to appointment on compassionate ground the employment of one family member in government service by itself cannot take away the right of consideration of another dependent family member. True it is that while considering the case of compassionate appointment, the respondents will have full power and jurisdiction to look into the financial condition of the family and if in course of doing so in the case of petitioner, the authorities could have found that the elder brother of the petitioner was already in employment in the Indian Army and was getting substantial amount of salary sufficient to meet the liability of the dependent family members deceased employee including the widow, the two unemployed sons and two unmarried daughters, such claim of 3 the petitioner could be rejected. The authority in course of their such enquiry could have also gone into the issue of assured income from family property of the deceased employee and the amount paid to the widow by way of death cum retirement benefit for evaluating the need of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Such inquiry in fact is permissible for finding the need for compassionate appointment, which as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana reported in 1994(4) SCC 138 has to be considered only when the condition of the family is in penury. However, the respondents in this case have not at all addressed themselves to these aspects and have rejected the case of the petitioner merely on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner was employed in Indian Army. They have also not taken into consideration the explanation of the petitioner that the elder brother of the petitioner was already employed in Indian Army since, 1996 and the death in harness of his father had taken place only in the month 4 of June-2005. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it necessary that the respondents should once again re-examine the case of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law. Let it be made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner but has definitely found the consideration made by the authorities to be not in accordance with law. That being so, this application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner and take a final decision in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Ranjan (Mihir Kumr Jha, J)