IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5942 of 2010 1. TRIFUL DEVI WIDOW OF DEO NARAYAN YADAV R/O VILL BARA, P.O.EKMA, P.S.SUPAUL, DISTT-SUPAUL 2. SUNAINA KUMARI D/O DEO NARAYAN YADAV R/O VILL BARA, P.O.EKMA, P.S.SUPAUL, DISTT-SUPAUL---PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SUPAUL 5. THE HEAD MASTER OF THE PRIMARY EDUCATION EKMA---------- --------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. K.N.Chaube, Sr.Advocate with M/s Subash Chandra Yadav and Ashok Kumar, Advocates For the State: Mr. Vasant Vikas, AC to SC-15 ----------- 4 3.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved because their claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent on the ground that there is no provision or policy for granting benefit of compassionate appointment to a missing employee. This decision against the petitioners was taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 8.8.2008 which is annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4. Submission of learned Senior counsel is that the decision for rejection of the claim of the petitioners is erroneous in view of the declaration of law on this issue by a learned Single Judge in the case of Md. Noor Alam & others vrs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(4) PLJR 200. The Court in similar circumstance taking into consideration the presumption provided in section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act declared that it will be treated as a case of - 2 - presumed civil death and that will be a valid ground for appointment on compassionate ground as claimed. There could be some merit in the submission of learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners on this score. The stand of the State that such a benefit cannot accrue to the petitioner as the case of Md. Noor Alam was confined to the said case may not be a correct interpretation of law as laid down. To that extent the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is held to be erroneous or faulty. However taking into consideration that the husband of petitioner no.1 was missing from the year 1987 and the family has managed its affairs for almost 24 years now then the primary object of granting benefit of compassionate appointment and the element therein is missing in the present case. Hon’ble Apex Court has recently held in so many words that object of granting compassionate appointment is not a method of appointment but to provide immediate relief to the family who were in distress of financial kind due to loss of bread earner of the family. This Court is of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner to the extent does not come within the ambit of such policy of appointment keeping in mind the time frame the husband of petitioner no.1 went missing i.e. 1987 when the relief in this regard has been prayed for, whatever be the background or the reason for no decision having been taken on this score by the respondents over the years. - 3 - In view of above no direction is being given by the Court in favour of the petitioners for reconsideration of their case. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)