WA 262/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 8.5.2009 passed by the learned Sing le Judge in WP(C) 1808/2009. The appellant sought appointment with the respondents on compassionate grounds b ecause his father died in harness. The appellant had earlier preferred a writ petition in this Court being WP(C) 72 29/2002 for the same relief. That writ petition was rejected by the learned Sing le Judge. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred WA 148/2003 and that was also dismissed by an order dated 27.4.2005. In the order passed in WA 148/2003 there is a categorical finding that it is not a case where the appellant’s father died as a result of an accident while on duty. As such, it was concluded that the ap pellant is not entitled to appointment to compassionate grounds. Much later, the appellant preferred another writ petition on the same ground but this time alleging that one Janmoni Das had been appointed as an attendant on a temporary basis. From the response received by the appellant on a query under t he Right to Information Act, 2005, it appears that Janmoni Das was appointed on compassionate grounds since her husband died in a departmental truck accident wh ile he was on duty. On this basis, the appellant once again approached this Cour t for relief but the writ petition was dismissed with costs. It is contended before us in appeal by learned counsel for the appellant that hi s client is entitled to get an appointment on compassionate grounds because Janm oni Das had been given an appointment on compassionate grounds and his case is s imilar to the case of Janmoni Das. In so far as the case of Janmoni Das is concerned, she was granted temporary app ointment on compassionate grounds since her husband died while he was on duty. H owever the finding recorded in the WA 148/2003 filed by the appellant is that it is not a case where his father died while he was on duty. That being the position and since the respondent has a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds only in respect of persons who die as a result of an acci dent while on duty, no interference is called for with the decision of the learn ed Single Judge in this case. No case of accidental death while on duty is made out. However since the learned Single Judge imposed a cost of Rs.1500/- on the writ p etitioner for seeking the same relief in a second writ petition, considering tha t he claimed a compassionate appointment, we feel that such cost should not have been ordered against the writ petitioner (appellant). Accordingly the order imp osing cost is recalled. Writ appeal dismissed accordingly.