IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13255 of 2007 Atul Kumar Ghosh, son of Late Umesh Prasad, resident of Village Mai, P.O. and P.S. Parwalpur, District Nalanda. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharshariff cum Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Nalanda. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 5. The Area Education Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 11.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Admittedly, the cause of action for the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground arose on 4.9.2000 when his father had died. Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, has submitted that though on 4.9.2000, the mother of the petitioner was in service but then she had also retired on 31.5.2002, and, therefore, the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Jyoti Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 7264 of 2003 would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has some misunderstanding of the Government circular dated 5.10.1991 which, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear 2 that if either of the spouses is still continuing in service on the death of the other spouse, the dependent children will not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died on 4.9.2000 and on that day, the mother of the petitioner was still continuing in service, inasmuch as, she had retired on 31.5.2002. The petitioner, therefore, was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Government policy laying down as follows:- ^^¼M+½ ;fn ifr&iRuh nksuks ljdkjh lsok esa gksa vkSj fdlh ,d dh e`R;q gks tk; rks oSlh fLFkfr esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk muds ifjokj ds fdlh vkfJr dks ugha feysxkA** It is this aspect of the matter which has also been gone into by the Division Bench in the case of Jyoti Kumari (supra) wherein the emphasis has been laid the position existing at the time of death of one spouse as would be apparent from the following passage of the order of the Division Bench:- “According to the said provision, when both husband and wife are in Government employment and one dies while other remains in employment, then no benefit of compassionate appointment can be given to any of the dependents of the deceased employee. Thus, the condition 3 precedent for non-applicability of the aforesaid provision is that at the time of death of one spouse, the other spouse is in employment. If the other spouse has already retired then the said clause, on the face of it, appears to be non-applicable. The view taken by the learned single Judge in the case of Dilip Kumar Das Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(2) PLJR 203 is a correct law.” In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ratio of Jyoti Kumari (supra) supports the case of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, in the case of Jyoti Kumari (supra) his father admittedly had superannuated on 21.1.1995 and his mother had died in hardship on 13.9.2000, whereas, converse is the position here. In the present case, when father of the petitioner died on 4.9.2000 his mother was still continuing in service and infact had retired from service only on 31.5.2002. That being so, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)