IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11256 of 2008 RAVI RANJAN ROY, S/O LATE RAMDEB PRASAD YADAV, R/O CHHOTI KELABARI, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. ...........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUNGER. 6.CIVIL SURGEON, MUNGER. 7.DEPUTY COLLECTOR ESTABLISHMENT, MUNGER. 8.DISTRICT MEDIA & EXTENTION OFFICER, MUNGER. ............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 04.05.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would submit that such rejection of the case of the petitioner has been made by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee of Munger district has been made on wholly irrelevant ground. In this context he has explained that the solitary reason given in the impugned order denying appointment of the petitioner because he was dependent of the deceased employee having two wives who had 2 performed his second marriage in the lifetime of his first wife cannot be sustained either on fact or in law. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground is not permissible, inasmuch as, the first wife is already receiving family pension and there are other substantial means for support of the family of the deceased employee In this respect he would refer to paragraph no. 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a stand has been taken in the counter affidavit cannot improve the reason of rejection already communicated in the impugned order which reads as follows:- ^^mi;qZDr fo"k;d izklkafxd i= ds lanHkZ esa lwfpr djuk gS fd fnukad 30-8-07 dks ftyk vuqdaik lfefr dh cSBd esa fuEu dkj.kksa ls lfefr }kjk vkosnd ds vkosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k x;k gS%& vapy vf/kdkjh] lnj eqaxsj ds tkap izfrosnu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd e`re dh nks izfr;ksa izFke ikoZfr nsoh mQZ ikjks nsoh] f}rh; izrhHkk nsoh gSA izfrHkk nsoh ,0 ,u0 ,e0 ds in ij lnj vLirky] eaqxsj esa inLFkkfir gSA nwljh iRuh }kjk gh izkFkfedh ¼,Q0 vkbZ0 vkj0½ fd;k x;k gS] tks ,Q0 vkbZ0 vkj0 fjiksVZ ls Li"V gksrk gS ljdkjh fu;ekuqlkj ljdkjh lsod dks nks iRuh j[kus dks vf/kdkj ugha gSA lfefr }kjk ekeyk dks vLohd`r djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA** Thus it would be apparent that the decision of District Compassionate Appointment 3 Committee was primarily swayed on account of its finding that the deceased employee had two wives and that the second wife was already in government service on the post of Auxilliary Nurse and Midwife (A.N.M.), who had also filed a criminal case against the family members of the petitioner. It thus becomes clear that District Compassionate Appointment Committee did not consider the eligibility of the petitioner rather ineligibility of the father of the petitioner. In the Government circular, there is a provision for appointment of one of the dependents of the deceased employee on compassionate ground and therefore, if the second wife whose marriage has been performed in the lifetime of the first wife of the deceased employee can not be held to be the wife for earning her own appointment. There would be however no impediment in appointment of the dependent of the deceased from his first wife. The very fact that the mother of the petitioner has been paid family pension and the respondents have also recognized her to be the first wife would also be sufficient to indicate 4 that the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered on merit and could not have been rejected only on the plea of the father of the petitioner having performed two marriages or the second wife to be employed as A.N.M. Mr. Sinha, has also pointed out that the story of the second marriage also has been already put to an end by a decree of divorce in the year 1990 and therefore the impugned order also suffers from a factual error. This Court however is not required to go into marital status of the deceased father of the petitioner or the correctness or otherwise of the second marriage or its alleged dissolution by an ex parte decree of divorce, inasmuch as, the only issue raised in this writ application remains confined to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Since, the petitioner claiming to be dependent of the deceased employee has filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground, the same has to be considered strictly on merits, wherein, the issue of financial resources of the family of the deceased employee including death cum retirement benefit and family pension 5 being paid to the mother of the petitioner can definitely be taken into consideration. The law in this respect has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, laying down only the condition that if the family is not in penury, there would be no need for appointment on compassionate ground. Such consideration however, has to be made by the competent authority by taking all other factors into consideration and since that has not been done while rejecting the case of the petitioner, this Court will have no other option but to quash the impugned order contained in Annexure-6 and consequently also the resolution passed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 30.08.2007, so far it relates to the petitioner. The Collector of Munger district is hereby directed to ensure that the case of the petitioner is placed again before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its next meeting for reconsidering the case of the petitioner on merits and if the Civil Surgeon being the recommending authority and the employer of the father of the petitioner is 6 required to furnish any further information pertaining to the claim of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, the same also must be done by Civil Surgeon, Munger within shortest possible time. The entire exercise of reconsideration for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this writ application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)