IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3991 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR RAY, S/O LATE JANAKI RAI, R/O VILLAGE ANDHERI, POLICE STATION SARAR (CHAURI), DISTRICT BHOJPUR. ...........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR AT ARA. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, BHOJPUR AT ARA. 3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SHAHABAD CIRCLE, ARA. 4.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHOJPUR AT ARA. 5.THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BHOJPUR AT ARA. ............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 20.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 31.07.2003, whereby and whereunder the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that one of the brother of the petitioner, the son of the deceased employee was gainfully employed. To that extent it woud be relevant to quote the resolution passed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in the case of petitioner which reads as follows:- ^^Lo0 tkudh jk; f'k{kd e0 fo0 [kqVgka budh e`R;q lsokjr voLFkk esa fnukad 23-5-2000 dh gqbZ gSA buds iq= Jh v'kksd dqekj jk; }kjk vuqdEik ds 2 vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu i= fnukad 15-1-01 dks fn;k x;k gS tks fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh }kjk vuq'kkflr ,oa vxzlkfjr gSA budh tUe frfFkh 25-1-82 rFkk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vkbZ0,l0lh0 f}rh; Js.kh ls mRrhZ.k gSA iwoZ dh cSBd esa buds HkkbZ ds lsokjr jgus rFkk firk ds thou dky ls gh vyx jgus dk le; U;k;ky; }kjk oS/kkfud izek.k dh ekax dh xbZ FkhA vkosnd }kjk oS/kkfud izek.k izLrqr fd;k x;k tks e`r ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q ds ckn dk nk;j gSA budh fu;qfDr ds ekeys esa dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ls bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 188 fnukad 19-2-03 }kjk ekxZ n'kZu dh ekax dh xbZ FkhA dkfeZd foHkkx ds i=kad 2645 fnukad 28-4-03 }kjk izko/kkuksa ds vuq:I vuqdEik lfefr esa gh djus dk funs'k gSA mDr vkyksd esas vkosnd ds vkosnu i= ij cSBd esa iquZfopkj fd;k x;kA iw.kZ fopkjksijkUr lfefr }kjk bl vLohd`r djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA** Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the aforementioned decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had drawn attention of this Court towards the earlier resolution passed by the committee in the meeting held on 19.07.2002, wherein the petitioner was asked to produce evidence of his being separate in mess and business with his brother who was already employed in Government service. He would submit that once the petitioner thereafter had also produced the decree of the Civil Court upholding the fact of his such separation with his elder brother in the lifetime of the father of the petitioner, the respondents could not have rejected the case 3 of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on a plea of the employment of his elder brother in Government service. Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, learned A.A.G. IX would however submit that once, the Compassionate Appointment Committee had found that one of the son of the deceased employee was gainfully employed in Government service, there would be no need to even consider the case of appointment of any other dependent, inasmuch as, someone in the family of the deceased has to meet the crisis arising out of the death of the deceased employee. In this context he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 453 which accordingly to him has been subsequently followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mangal Raut vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 103. In the considered opinion of this court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Division Bench which reads as follows:- 4 'The petitioner's mother was working on class IV post of Sweepress and she died while in service on 11.07.1995 leaving behind two sons and two daughters. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment on 27.09.1996. The petitioner claims to be Class VII pass. The admitted position is that the elder brother of the petitioner is in Government Service in Class IV, post from before the death of mother. The Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was earlier recommended by the District Commpassionate Committee, Supaul, but the same was rejected by the Department. However, the petitioner claimed that the order was not communicated to him and filed C.W.J.C NO. 1287 of 2006 and by order order dated 19.05.2006 this Court remitted the matter back to the Commissioner/Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. On reconsideration the impugned order dated 12.08.2006 has been passed by which the case of the petitioner has been again rejected on the ground that one member of the family , Sri Satya Narayan Raut, the elder brother of petitioner was employed from before and had also received the death-cum-retiral benefits of his mother alongwith the petitioner. It was further held that the petitioner had suppressed the fact regarding the employment of his brother in Government service in his application and affidavit dated 18.07.1995 for compassionate appointment. Thus any further inquiry into the issue as to whether the elder brother of the petitioner was separate in mess and business either before the death of the deceased employee or even thereafter will have now no 5 relevance, inasmuch as, this Court is bound by the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Mangal Raut (supra) squarely covering the case of the petitioner. That being so, there is no merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)