IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4119 of 2006 NIRAJ KUMAR, son of late Tuntun Mahto, resident of Mohalla Chitra Gupta Nagar, Pokharia, W.N.16, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Judge, Begusarai, Civil Court 3. Judge Incharge, Administration, Begusarai Civil Court 4. The Registrar, Civil Court, Begusarai 5. Mamta Devi, wife of late Tuntun Mahto, D/O Sivan Mahton, resident of Lakho, P.S. Muffasil, Begusarai, District Begusarai … Respondents ----------- 3. 1.4.2011 Heard Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5 as also A.C. to S.C.IV for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground, who is said to have died in harness on 29.10.2003 while holding the post of Peon in Civil Court, Begusarai. Mr. Sinha would point out that as a matter of fact there was a complete understanding between the dependents of the deceased employee and in fact succession certificate issued by the court in favour of the widow, respondent no.5, would by itself 2 be a testimony to the fact that the entire monetary payments to be made on account of premature death of the father of the petitioner was agreed to be given to the widow for maintaining herself and her two children from the second marriage of the father of the petitioner. He would further explain that this was done in order to facilitate consideration of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, inasmuch as even from the 1st wife the father of the petitioner had two issues, namely, two sons and additionally a dependent widow mother. Mr. Sinha in this context would also refer to the letter of the District Judge, Begusarai wherein a written understanding was said to have been given by respondent no.5, the second wife, giving up her claim of appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of all these aspects Mr. Sinha would emphasize that there being no dispute at all, the District Judge in all fairness ought to have appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5, on 3 the other hand, would submit that the alleged consent of respondent no.5 giving up her claim for appointment on compassionate ground is absolutely incorrect and that she had never given anything in writing to this effect. He would further explain that there has been some sort of pressure, threat and coercion exerted on respondent no.5 on account of which she had to run away to her parents’ home, inasmuch as the petitioner, his elder brother and the widow grand mother were hostile towards her. He has also given the vivid picture of the whole family and has explained that the widow grand mother is already receiving family pension from the Government as the grand father of the petitioner was a Government employee. He has also explained that the only other brother of the petitioner is already employed in Indian Army and therefore, when the petitioner also is having sufficient means for running his own business of fruits and infact also having a fruit shop, it is the widow, respondent no.5, admittedly the only wife at the time of death of the deceased employee, who in terms of the priority fixed among the categories of persons to be 4 employed on compassionate ground would be eligible for such appointment. In reply Mr. Sinha would submit that most of the allegations made by respondent no.5 against the petitioner or the grand mother have been her own creation and in fact when a complaint case was filed to this effect by respondent no.5 the same was also dismissed under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that as there is a conflict of interest and dispute with regard to claim for compassionate appointment the District Judge has not been able to take a final decision. In the considered opinion of this Court the District Judge Begusarai should not have remained a mute expectator, inasmuch as the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been almost lost in the intervening eight years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The District Judge in all fairness ought to have made enquiry as to whether first of all on account of payments already received by way of retirement benefit of the deceased 5 employee by the family members, was there any further requirement of providing a job on compassionate ground as was laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & ors., reported in 1994 (4) S.C.C. 138. In such enquiry of course the District Judge could have also gone into the aspect whether the widow grand mother is receiving the family pension or the other brother of the petitioner was employed in Indian Army. Such enquiry in fact could have easily led to the conclusion that when father of the petitioner was having a take-home salary of around 5,000/- only, was the family not assured of that much of resources by way of retirement benefit and other payments made to the family member. The matter has been sufficiently delayed and in fact this writ application somehow has also remained pending for a period of five years in this Court in the process of filing counter affidavit and its rejoinder by the parties. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the District Judge, Begusarai to issue notice to both the 6 petitioner as also to respondent no.5 to appear in person and hold an enquiry on all the aspects including those indicated above and come to his positive conclusion as to whether there would be need for appointment on compassionate ground to any of the dependent member of the deceased family. In case the District Judge comes to such a conclusion that there would still be a need for such appointment he will go by the settled norms as prescribed in Govt. policy dated 05.10.1991 wherein the widow of the deceased employee has given precedence for appointment on compassionate ground over the son, unmarried daughter and widow of predeceased son. It is, however, made clear that in that event the widow Respondent no. 5 is appointed on compassionate ground and the petitioner being the step son cannot live together under the same roof with respondent no.5, he would pass also an order for straightway deduction of certain portion of salary from respondent no.5 for its being paid to petitioner on monthly basis for maintenance of the petitioner if he has got no other source of income by which he can 7 maintain himself. Such amount of apportionment in this case would of course depend on the respective earning of all the dependents of the family members of the deceased employee. The District Judge Begusarai, however must take a final decision in this regard within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, and for this purpose this Court would also direct the petitioner and respondent no.5 to appear either in person or through their counsel before the District Judge, Begusarai on 18th April, 2011 and the period of four months shall start running from that date. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Surendra/ (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)