IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1663 of 2005 Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Raut, son of Late Arjun Ram, resident of Mohalla- Pachana Road, Ward No. 9, at post office and police station- Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai………………….……………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Special Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality, Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai. 2. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai. 4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai………………………………………………..Respondents. ---------------------------------- 7. 29.07.2011. Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Lakhisarai Municipality. The present writ application has been filed for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground since the petitioner’s father being Class-IV employee of Lakhisarai Municipality died in harness on 28.04.2001. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner made an application for being appointed as class-IV employee on compassionate ground on 23.11.2004. Thereafter, lastly the petitioner submitted 2 his application on 04.01.2005. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the mother of petitioner was already a class IV employee of the Khagaria Municipality and her claim for family pension was rejected by this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 1167 of 2005 on the ground of death of her husband, since she is the employee of Nagar Parishad, Lakhisarai. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Lakhisarai Municipality that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment since her mother is already a Class IV employee of Nagar Parishad. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s mother is not a Government employee rather an employee of Nagar Parishad. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide a bread earner to the family of deceased employee. Since the petitioner’s mother is 3 already a class IV employee since 2001 till date in view of this Court the petitioner is not entitled for any appointment on compassionate ground. Considering the aforesaid principles, perhaps, the claim for family pension of the petitioner’s mother was denied by this Court. Since the father of petitioner died in 2001 the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is absolutely unjustified hence, this Court finds no merit in this writ application, accordingly it is dismissed. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)