IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7878 of 2010 MOSTT. KUMARI MANJULA, W/O LATE CHANDRIKA THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE- BIDHIPUR,P.O.- KARAUTHA, P.S.-BAKHATIARPUR,DISTRICT-PATNA. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, (C.R.P.F.) CENTRAL OFFICE, RANGE,LODHI ROAD,NEW DELHI. 3. THE D.I.G. (ADMINISTRATION & WELFARE) C.R.P.F. CENTRAL OFFICE, RANGE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER-36 BATALIAN,C.R.P.F. GAWALPADA,ASSAM. 5. THE I.G.POLICE BIHAR, SECTOR, C.R.P.F. ,BIHAR, PATNA-25. 6. THE COMMANDANT-36, BATALIAN, C.R.P.F., I.T. COMPLEX, GAYA, BIHAR. ----------- 02. 18.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is the widow of late Chandrika Thakur, Constable(GD) CRPF, number 951140724 who died on 6.9.2004. Soon after the death of husband of the petitioner application was made for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by the authorities under letter dated 15.7.2009 as would appear from the communication made under letters dated 3.8.2009 and 25.9.2009, Annexures-16 and 12. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is suffering in penury for want of employment as the bread winner of the family left for heavenly abode while serving the force on 6.9.2004. It is also submitted that in the light of the instruction of the Government of India as also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 1976, paragraphs-8 and 9 the authorities are required to create a supernumerary post and provide the petitioner with employment. Relevant passage from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is quoted hereinbelow:- - 2 - 8. We heard counsel on both sides and gave our anxious consideration to the problem presented. It seems to us that the High Court has made the order in a mechanical way and if we may say so, the order lacks the sense of justice. Sushma Gosain made an application for appointment as Lower Division Clerk as far back in November, 1982. She had then a right to have her case considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the aforesaid government Memorandum. In 1983, she passed the trade test and the interview conducted by the DGBR. There is absolutely no reason to make her to wait till 1985 when the ban on appointment of ladies was imposed. The denial of appointment is patently arbitrary and cannot be supported in any view of the matter. 9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 4. In the light of the aforesaid observation and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on any post and if such post is not available then by creating such post as was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain(Supra) as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the authorities. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)