IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4279 of 2007 AMAN KUMAR, AMAN KUMAR, S/O LATE RAM EKBAL SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DARIAPUR, P.O. FAKHARPUR, P.S. KARPI, DISTRICT-JAHANABAD AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O BIMILESH KUMAR CHAWHDARY, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PUSA BLOCK,P.S. PUSA,DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENET OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, THROUGH THE VICE CHANCELLOR, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR. 3.VICE CHANCELLOR OF RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR. 4.SMT. USHA KUMARI, SECOND WIFE OF LATE RAM EKBAL SINGH, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT QR.NO. OLD C/2-35, PUSA CAMPUS, P.S. PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. …………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 02/ 01.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application for a direction of his appointment on compassionate ground has now become infructuous, in view of the fact that the respondent University has already appointed respondent no. 4 the wife of deceased employee, by way of compassionate appointment by an order dated 17.11.2008 against a class-III post in the University. Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that, when the retirement benefit of 2 the deceased employee was apportioned between respondent no. 4 and the petitioner, she ought not to have been appointed, inasmuch as, it is the petitioner who has to maintain himself and his brother and sister, all being issues from the first wife of the deceased employee. He has also explained that the comparative hardship is much more on the side of the petitioner, inasmuch as, there are three dependent family members including the petitioner from the first wife of the deceased employee, whereas his step mother, the respondent no. 4 has only one issue from the father of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, there can be no two view that respondent no. 4 would fall in the first category under the scheme of compassionate appointment inasmuch as the wife is the first amongst four of the categories prescribed under the State Government policy dated 05.10.1991, also adopted by the University wherein the position of the son comes only next after the wife. In that view of the matter, the University has committed no error in appointing respondent no. 4 on 3 compassionate ground. That however, would not be the end of the matter, inasmuch as, the scheme of compassionate appointment in vogue also envisages that the person so appointed will have to maintain all the dependent family members of the deceased employee. In this particular case, when the deceased employee has three children from his first wife, they have to be definitely maintained till they are settled either by way of getting employment or married (in case of daughter). It is also not possible for the step-son and step daughter to live in peace with respondent no. 4, the step-mother under one roof and therefore, the University will have to evolve some sort of mechanism to see that the petitioner and his brother and sister from the first wife of the father of the petitioner are properly maintained by the Respondent no.4. While this Court in the absence of respondent no. 4, would not like to pre- judge the aforesaid issue, it would however direct the Vice Chancellor and the Director, Administration of the University to issue 4 notice to both the petitioner and respondent no. 4, for fixing the quantum of amount of salary which would be apportioned and paid to the petitioner for maintaining himself and his brother and sister from the first wife. What would be such reasonable amount, would also depend on the assured income from the various resources that the petitioner and other family members may have acquired after the death of the deceased employee. In that view of the matter, this court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director, Administration of the University by filing a compact representation for getting the whole matter of apportionment of the income of respondent no. 4, decided by the Vice Chancellor of the University and such representation of the petitioner would be decided within a period of six months from the date of its being filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. 5 Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)