IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13086 of 2011 Munna Sah S/O Late Jaga Sah R/O Vill.- Dhanushi, P.O.- Ghataro, P.S.- Lalganj, Distt.- Vaishali Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Department of Energy, Patna. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Department of Energy, Patna Division, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Electricity, Patna Division, Patna. 6. The Appointing Authority, Department of Energy, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Establishment Committee, Vaishali through the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 8. Arun Singh S/O Yamuna Singh R/O Vill.- Saidpur, P.S.- Dighwara, Distt.- Saran (Chapra). ----------- 02. 12.10.2011 This writ seems to be ill-advised which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. He claims himself to be the son of Jaga Sah. Father of the petitioner was said to have been initially appointed as a daily rated Mazdoor in the so-called work charge establishment of the Department of Energy in terms of Annexure-1. According to him, his name figures in the list of persons so appointed but he had no information and somebody else impersonating as Jaga Sah continued to work under the respondents. This fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner much later and may be after death of his father. Now a claim is being made for compassionate appointment under the State. Two things which are glaring in nature are that since father of the petitioner never worked and was not even permanent employee under the State, there is no occasion to consider any claim for compassionate appointment as 2 compassionate appointment is not available to non-permanent employees much less daily rated mazdoors. To make confusion much confounded for the petitioner, father of the petitioner never worked because there was an impersonator who was working in the name of his father. If that be so, then no right for claiming compassionate appointment is made out and therefore, no direction can be issued in the above stated facts and circumstances upon the respondents to even consider the claim of the petitioner in any manner. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)