IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8545 of 2007 MAHABIR PASWAN,S/O LATE BISHESHWAR PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE LAUKHI, P.O. NANDLALI, P.S. BIHRA, DISTRICT SAHARSA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAYPUR, P.O. JAIPUR, P.S. KATORIYA, DISTRICT BANKA. ………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 4.THE COLLECTOR-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, BANKA. 5.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BHAGALPUR. 6.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, BANKA. 7.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, BANKA. 8.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH SUB DIVISION, KATORIYA, BANKA. …………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 05.04.2011 Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner for issuance of a direction for his appointment on compassionate ground has sought to be opposed by the counsel for the State taking a plea, that at the time of death, the father of the petitioner was working as a daily wager in Public Health and Engineering Department and as per the Government policy of compassionate appointment, no dependent 2 of a daily wager employee can be appointed on compassionate ground. Mr. Mishra, however tried to explain that the father of the petitioner came to be appointed initially on daily wage in the year 1980, and thereafter the father of the petitioner was brought into work charge establishment in the year 1988, but subsequently that order of work charge establishment was set aside by the authority and the petitioner was sought to be brought back on daily wages. He would explain that the order bringing back the father of the petitioner from work charge establishment to daily wager however, could not be implemented and the father of the petitioner had in fact died as a work charge employee and therefore, when this Court in the case of Koshi Project Workers’s Association & Anr vs The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2007(1) PLJR 358 had held that all the work charge employees after completing one year of their employment will be deemed to have become regular employees, the petitioner cannot be denied of such appointment on compassionate ground by taking a plea that 3 the father of the petitioner was working on daily wages. Counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that once the order was issued bringing back the petitioner from work charge establishment to daily wage establishment and that the order was never set aside by this Court, presumption in law would be that the petitioner’s father had died while being only a daily wager. He would also submit that irrespective of the status of work charge employee becoming the regular employee, the issue in hand relating to impermissibility of appointment on compassionate ground of a work charge employee has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(4) PLJR 889, and as such the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Having regard to the aforementioned submissions, the first and foremost question would be as to what was the status of the father of the petitioner at the time of his death, whether of a daily wager or of a work 4 charge employee or of a regular employee. For this no other thing would be required to look into but the said order passed by the authority as with regard to the father of the petitioner and that order was passed by the Secretary of the Department which in no uncertain terms, had declared that not only the petitioner but a large number of other daily wages employee, in violation of the Government policy were brought in workcharge establishment and thus they had to be once again reduced to their earlier status of a daily wage employee. It is true that those orders were initially stayed by this Court in some of the cases but then those interim orders could not be maintained, when such writ applications were finally disposed of by a Division Bench directing only consideration for their restoration of status of a work charge employee in the light of recommendation of the committee. Admittedly the petitioner’s father case could not be considered by the committee because by that time he had already died. Thus, the father of the petitioner had admittedly died only as a daily wage 5 employee and therefore question of the applicability of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Koshi Project Workers’s Association & Anr vs The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2007(1) PLJR 358 as with regard to deemed regularization of only a work charge employee would not arise. Assuming that the father of the petitioner was a work charge employee, even then, so far the case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner is concerned, would make no difference inasmuch as this very aspect of the matter has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004(4) PLJR 889, wherein after considering the entire concept of compassionate appointment as also the nature of work charge establishment, it has been held that the Government policy of compassionate appointment dated 05.10.1991 and its updation from time to time did not envisage appointment of a dependent who was continuing in service in work charge establishment inasmuch as such persons were 6 not holders of any sanctioned post a prerequisite under the aforesaid policy of compassionate appointment. That being so, this Court will find it difficult either to interfere with the policy dated 5.10.1991 or to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. This writ application thus being devoid of any merits is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)