IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4141 of 2007 BITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, son of late Jugeshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla Mahalpar, P.O. Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Director, Government Construction Works, Nalanda 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda 4. The Establishment Deputy Collector, Nalanda 5. The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Nalanda 6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda … Respondents ----------- 2. 4.4.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been denied appointment on compassionate ground on a plea that the death of his father had taken place in the year 1998 and a period of more than five years had since elapsed as on 11.12.2006, the date on which the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had considered the case of the petitioner. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the aforementioned order would submit that it is not requirement of the policy that the consideration has to be made within a period of five years and in absence thereof the incumbent seeking appointment on compassionate ground has to suffer. He would 2 in this regard submit that if there was delay in considering the case of the petitioner by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, the petitioner cannot be penalized for such delay on the part of the authorities. Counsel for the State, who has filed his counter affidavit, would submit that the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment in prescribed proforma was placed before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee which had rejected the same primarily by taking into account the passage of eight years period from the date of death, in which the family members of the deceased family employee had been able to survive and as such, the view taken by the Committee cannot be faulted in law. It is very difficult for this Court to accept the submission of the counsel for the State for more than one reason. First of all, as noted above, the delay in considering the case by the respondents cannot be made a ground for rejection of an application on compassionate ground. 3 Secondly, it is an admitted position that the matter relating to the petitioner and other dependents was awaiting issuance of a succession certificate, inasmuch as the two ladies claiming to be widows of the deceased employee were contesting the matter keenly in Civil Court and the Civil Court could issue grant of succession certificate in the name of the mother of the petitioner only in the year 2002. Once this aspect was known to the authorities that the matter was awaiting decision of the Civil Court, probably the delay in filing the application by the petitioner in prescribed proforma to a large extent had also been explained. There is also no denial to the fact that the petitioner had filed the application for compassionate appointment in prescribed proforma on 20.6.2003 i.e. within a period of five years, inasmuch as the date of death of the father of the petitioner was 21.6.1998. This part of the statement made by the respondents in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit reading as follows :- "That in reply to para 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner again filed an 4 application on 20.6.2003 for appointment on compassionate ground which has been no legal value at that time in the light of circular issued vide memo no. 768 dated 20.6.2003 by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar." would leave nothing for speculation that the delay in the period between 20.6.2003 to 11.12.2006, the date on which the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had rejected the case of the petitioner, was totally attributable to the respondents. In that view of the matter, this Court would set aside the impugned resolution passed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee as with regard to the petitioner on 11.12.2006, vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition, and remit the matter back to the Collector of the District, who now will hold his independent enquiry after giving notice to the petitioner as also to the concerned Executive Engineer, Building Division, Nalanda whose office has admitted the receipt of the application filed by the 5 petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 20.6.2003. If the Collector would find that there is an unimpeachable evidence of filing of the application by the petitioner within the prescribed period of five years, he would immediately place the case of the petitioner before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the Government policy. If, however, the Collector of the District comes to a finding that there was some ante-dating in the date of filing of the application by the petitioner in the office of the concerned Executive Engineer, he will record his reasons for doing so and thereafter would also recommend to the Government for taking suitable disciplinary action against the person passed in the office of Executive Engineer who had colluded with the petitioner in such antedating. Additionally, this Court would direct the Principal Secretary of the Building Department, to initiate a departmental proceeding against the 6 concerned Executive Engineer who was posted in Building Division, Nalanda as on 20.6.2003 for the misconduct that either he had kept the application of the petitioner pending from 20.6.2003 till 2006 despite being asked to send such application by the Collectorate of Nalanda District vide letter of the Deputy Collector In-charge dated 14.8.2004 or had colluded with the petitioner in accepting his application in the back date of 20.6.2003. Irrespective of such result of departmental proceeding, the final decision as with regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground must be taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the State for its immediate communication to both Principal Secretary of the Building Department as also 7 to the Collector of Nalanda District for doing the needful. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/