IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6440 of 2007 SONE LAL PASWAN, S/O SOKHI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-BHAGWANPUR, P.S.SADAR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. ……………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.. 4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 6.THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN-CUM- DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 7.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR- CUM-CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, MUZAFFARPUR. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 01.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Admittedly father of the petitioner remained as a work-charge employee from 1984 to 1999 and in fact also died in harness only as a work-charge employee. Such work- charge employee cannot be held to be a Government servant and consequently their dependent family members will have no right of being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the persons junior to the father of the petitioner were subsequently regularized and therefore, if the father of the petitioner also had been alive, he could also have been regularized. It will be very difficult to this Court to make any presumptive pronouncement but then if after the date of death of the father of the petitioner such regularization of any of his junior has been made, it will be open for the petitioner to point out this aspect to the authorities and if the authorities find that even after the death of the father of the petitioner his denial of regularization would amount to infringement to his right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, they would be required to reconsider the matter for regularizing the services of the father of the petitioner. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed its any opinion on the aspect of the regularization of the father of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the scope of this writ application is confined to only compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Nonetheless as the case of the petitioner may have been decided in his favour, had the father of the petitioner had been regularized in service in view of the juniors to him being regularized, this Court would direct the respondents to reconsider the matter relating to first regularization of the services of the father of the petitioner and in the event of such claim being allowed also for considering for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner’s father is not regularized and his position remains only as work-charge employee, the petitioner would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the law laid down by division bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(4) PLJR 889. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)