IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.115 OF 2006 ------- 1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Department of PHED, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate-Purnea-cum-Chairman of Appointment on compassionate ground Committee, Purnea. 3. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D.Division, Purnea. …. Respondents-Appellants Versus Meera Devi, Wife of late Satya Narayan Mishra, at P.H.E.D.Quarter, near Water Tanki, Police Station- Khajanchi Ghat, District-Purnea. … Petitioner-Respondent -------- For the appellants : Mr.Anil Kumar Jha, Government Advocate- II Mr. Gajendra Nath Ojha, Junior Counsel to Government Advocate-II For the respondent : Mr. Badri Narain Singh, Advocate Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 17th November, 2008. Satya Narayan Mishra was employed as a Head Clerk in the office of Public Health and Engineering Department, Purnea. He died in harness on 10th of October, 2000. His wife Meera Devi ( present respondent) made an application for appointment on compassionate ground to her only daughter Amrita Mishra. Her claim for compassionate appointment to her daughter Amrita Mishra was rejected as she was married. She approached this court by filing writ - 2 - petition (CWJC No.4022/2001). The Single Judge partly allowed her writ petition vide order dated 21st September, 2004 with a direction to the present appellants to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment made by her. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal. 2. At the outset, we may observe that ordinarily we would not have dealt with the matter on merit in the appeal from an order like this whereby the Single Judge has remitted the matter back to the Compassionate Committee for reconsideration of the application for compassionate appointment made by the present respondent (writ petitioner). However, in view of the admitted facts, we are of the view that reconsideration of the application made by the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground is uncalled for. We indicate the reasons therefor. 3. That the widow (present respondent) did not desire the appointment for her own on compassionate ground is an admitted position. She desired her only daughter Amrita Mishra to be given appointment on compassionate ground is not disputed. That Amrita Mishra is married is also an admitted position. She stated in her application for appointment that since her only daughter and son-in- law were looking after her, on the death of her husband, appointment on compassionate ground be given to her daughter. 4. The State Government has framed the guidelines for appointment to the dependants of deceased employee in Class III and - 3 - Class IV on compassionate ground. The scheme is applicable to the dependants of the employees who have died in harness. Rule 1 of the Scheme provides for eligibility of appointment on compassionate ground. Inter-alia it provides that one of the dependants of the deceased employee who had died in harness may be appointed on compassionate ground. The dependants eligible for such appointment are wife, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter-in-law in that order of priority. Clauses (ga) and (gha) of Rule 1, if read together, makes it clear that four categories of dependants are eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and the dependants other than these four categories are excluded from being considered for such appointment. The categories of the dependants who are eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, as indicated above, are in the order of preference; (one) widow; (two) son; (three) unmarried daughter and (four) widowed daughter-in-law. All other relatives and dependants like nephew, son-in-law, adopted son etc. are excluded from being considered for the appointment on compassionate ground. It is, thus, apparent that under the guidelines framed by the State Government for appointment on compassionate ground, a married daughter is not eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Neither in the application made by her, the respondent desired appointment to be given to her on compassionate ground alternatively, nor before the Single Judge any such plea was made. As a matter of fact before the Single Judge, a - 4 - categorical statement was made on her behalf that she was ailing and was not in a position to accept the compassionate appointment. 5. An appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the ordinary mode of recruitment in the government service. The whole idea of such appointment is to provide an opportunity to the dependants of the deceased government employee to tide over the financial crisis that might have struck the family because of the untimely death of the sole earning member. Since the appointment by way of compassionate ground is itself an exception to the ordinary mode of recruitment, the guidelines framed thereunder have to be strictly construed and eligibility has to be clearly reflected from such guidelines. Since the guidelines framed by the State Government provide for appointment on compassionate ground to only four categories of the dependants and none other, a married daughter not being included therein, the application made by the widow for giving appointment to her married daughter on compassionate ground could not have been granted. It has been rightly rejected by the authority. 6. The Single Judge failed to notice rule 1 of the guidelines which specifically provides for the categories of the dependants entitled for consideration for appointment on the compassionate ground. 7. Mr. Badri Narain Singh, counsel for the respondent, however, placed reliance upon the following judgments of this court: (i) Rizwan Ansari and another Vs. The State of Bihar and - 5 - others, 1991 (2) PLJR 383; (ii) Kamal Ranjan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 1994(2) PLJR 536; (iii) Most. Shail Devi & anr Vs. The Board of Director and Ors, 2001 (4) PLJR 241. 8. In the case of Rizwan Ansari, although appointment was sought for by the nephew of the deceased employee on compassionate ground, the judgment does not reflect any consideration of provision like rule 1. In the judgment it is noticed that as per the Government Circular (annexure-12), Rizwan Ansari was bound to be appointed by the Director General of Police, Bihar. There is nothing to infer that in the government circular under consideration before the Division Bench, any provision like rule-1 of the guidelines with which we are concerned was under consideration. Rizwan Ansari, therefore, has no application. 9. In the case of Kamal Ranjan, what has been observed is that the Circular dated 15th October, 1991, could not supersede the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and, therefore, the claim of adopted son could not have been denied. In this connection, the Division Bench referred to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and held the said provision conferred upon the adopted son the same right and privileges in the adoptive family as the legitimate natural born son or daughter for all purposes. We need not say much about the said judgment, but suffice it to observe that we are - 6 - not concerned with the appointment of adopted son and there is no provision like Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 involved in the present case. As already noticed above, unmarried daughter is excluded from the category of dependants entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in the guidelines framed by the State Government and we do not find anything wrong with that. 10. In the case of Most. Shail Devi, the Single Judge was concerned with the appointment of son-in-law of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. The scheme with which the Single Judge was concerned defined the „dependant‟ thus: “Dependant means a widow, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister of the deceased employee or any other close relative nominated by the widow when the deceased employee has left behind no children of his own eligible for appointment and on whom she will be wholly dependant.” 11. The scheme with which we are concerned is altogether different, and, as indicated above, it only entitles four categories of dependants for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground and these dependants are (one) widow; (two) son; (three) unmarried daughter; and (four) widowed daughter-in-law. The married daughter of the deceased employee is excluded from being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 12. Resultantly, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The order of the Single Judge dated 21st September, 2004 is - 7 - set aside. As a consequence thereof, the writ petition filed by the respondent before the Single Judge has to be dismissed and is dismissed. No order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil