IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10113 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Nilam Kumari W/O Late Rajabali Singh Clerk I.T.I.Ara), C/O Haridwar Isngh, Moh Bashishtha Nagar, Ara, P.O.Ara Nawada, Distt-Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. Director, Labour Employment And Training Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Secretary, Labour Resources Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. Principal , Industrial Training Institution Ara, Distt-Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kr.Singh Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh Mr. /Mrs.Sudha Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp19) ====================================================== 3 25-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased late Rajabali Singh, a clerk in the I.T.I. at Arrah who was deceased on 2.11.2009, seeking compassionate appointment. It has been denied to her in writing on 9.3.2010 by one Shri Arun Kumar Dutta, Deputy Director, Training, in the department of Labour Resources, Directorate of Appointment and Training, Bihar. The sole ground mentioned in the order is that late Shri Singh was one of the 206 illegal appointments pending consideration before the State Government. After a decision was taken it shall be communicated to her. The pleadings of Patna High Court CWJC No.10113 of 2010 (3) dt.25-10-2011 2 the writ petition painstakingly reveal the details of C.W.J.C. No.9760/99 preferred by the aggrieved including her husband allowed by this Court holding him to be a valid appointee, the dismissal of L.P.A. No.576/05 preferred by the respondents affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) on 8.1.2008. A review application by the respondents is also mentioned to have been dismissed by the on 15.7.2009. It is apparent that the status of the deceased attained finality before the issuance of the impugned order. The counter affidavit does not make even a pretence of a defence. A condescending statement has been made belatedly that the matter is under process. The only fresh development has been the institution of the present application on 19.5.2010. The impugned order dated 9.3.2010 suffers from completely non-application of mind and appears to be the product of a reckless exercise of authority, perhaps motivated by extraneous considerations. Power carries with it the duty to act responsibly. A reckless exercise of power shall necessarily invite responsibility and accountability. When the State Government reposed power in its officer, the State Government remained the repository of the power. The functionary was a trustee of the Government. If the trustee has abused the power which had been given in trust Patna High Court CWJC No.10113 of 2010 (3) dt.25-10-2011 3 imposing unnecessary burden on the State Government and thrusting what may have been a totally avoidable litigation before this Court, the Court considers the matter sufficiently important to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to examine issues of accountability and answerability for the manner in which the trustee appears to have acted complete antithesis to the State Litigation Policy, and pass final orders both on the claim for compassionate appointment and the casualness of the impugned order within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order keeping in mind that compassionate appointment has its own urgency. The order dated 9.3.2010 is set aside. It has been observed in (2003) 3 SCC 117 (State of U.P. vs. Janki Devi Pal) as follows:- “Instead of putting its house in order, the State Government has indulged in the luxury of litigation by adding to the number of pendency of cases.” The Principal, I.T.I., at Arrah shall also ensure that all arrears of gratuity, earned leave, pension and current pension are actually and physically paid to the petitioner within the same aforesaid period, if not already paid. The writ application stands allowed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)