IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6073 of 2006 KHALID NADEEM KHAN son of Gulam Gazi Khan, resident of Muhalla Kalibagh, P.S.Bettiah Town, District West Champaran----------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah 2.The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah 3.The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran, Bettiah 4.The Block Education Extension Officer, Bettiah West Champaran 5.The Director, Primary Education,Bihar Patna--------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Sanjeev Kumar No.1 For the State :Mr.S.B.N.Singh,AC to GA IX ---- I.A.No.2345 of 2009 6. 15.4.2009 The interlocutory application has been filed for addition of further prayer so as to challenge the decision of the District Compassionate Committee, West Champaran at Bettiah, in its meeting held on 9.7.2001 by which it has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that petitioner’s father was in Government service and after retirement the dependents were getting pension. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said order was never served upon him and for the first time he has learnt about it when the same was brought on the record as Annexure-A to the 2 supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for addition of relief is allowed. I.A.No. 2345 of 2009 is, accordingly, disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground on the death of his mother on 13.1.1998 while she was working as Assistant Teacher in a Government School. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The mother of the petitioner, as stated above, died on 13.1.1998 while in Government service. Prior to the aforesaid death the father of the petitioner, who was also a Government employee, retired from his service on 30.11.1995. The petitioner upon the death of his mother applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 2.11.1998. However, the said claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 9.7.2001 on the ground that the father of the 3 petitioner was also in Government service and after his retirement his dependents are getting pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no bar for compassionate appointment in such cases and as per the Circular dated 5.10.1991 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, it is only when both the husband and wife are in Government service and one of them dies that no dependent of the family can be given the benefit of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel contends that the said provision has also been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jyoti Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & ors.: 2005(4) PLJR 507, in which in paragraph-6 it has been held as follows: “6.According to the said provision, when both husband and wife are in Government employment and one dies while other remains in employment, then no benefit of compassionate appointment can be given to any of the dependents of the deceased employee. Thus, the condition precedent for non-applicability of the aforesaid provision is that at the time of death of one spouse, the other spouse is in employment. If the other spouse has already retired then the said clause, on the face of it, appears to be non- applicable.” 4 It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel that in view of the settled position of law by the Division Bench of this Court the respondent authorities are bound to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the Government Circular dated 5.10.1991. Learned counsel for the State does not seriously oppose the said stand of learned counsel for the petitioner in view of what has been decided by the Division Bench. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti Kumari’s case (supra) this Court is of the view that the District Compassionate Committee has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner in its meeting held on 9.7.2001. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The decision of the District Compassionate Committee dated 9.7.2001 in so far as it relates to the petitioner is quashed and the matter is remanded to the District Compassionate Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three 5 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/