IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.121 of 2008 DHEERAJ KUMAR,S/O LATE JAI NANDAN CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE-SHERPUR, POLICE STATION KANTI DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.R.P.F. NEW DELHI. 3.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, BIHAR SECTOR, PATNA. 4.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5.THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, MUZAFFARPUR. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 15.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by recording the finding that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee was not in penury and that the payment made of a sum of Rs. 8.8 lacs by way of death cum retirement benefit and also monthly pension of around Rs. 2925/- was sufficient to meet the crisis created on account of the death of the deceased employee. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the deceased employee has left behind six family members and that the deceased employee was also landless, such amount may not be sufficient for maintaining the family. The fact that the deceased employee has been paid a sum of Rs. 8.8 lacs ordinarily would fetch at least monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of interest and the widow was also being paid monthly pension of Rs. 2925/- would go to show that that even after the death of the bread earner, the family of the deceased employee was assured with income of at least 10 to 12 thousand per month. A family of six persons could definitely be maintained in a sum of Rs. 10 to 12 thousand and therefore, the conclusion reached by the respondents in the impugned order does not suffer from any error. This matter has already been settled in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 and also in the case of Kunti Devi vs State Bank Of India reported in 2004(7) SCC 265. Thus for the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)