IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20853 of 2011 1. Sunita Devi D/O Late Kamla Kant Mishra R/O Village- Nimia, P.O.- Bhadaula, P.S.- Kudra, District- Kaimur At Bhabua Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Kaimur At Bhabua 3. The Additional Collector, Kaimur At Bhabua 4. The District Development Commissioner, Kaimur At Bhabua 5. The District Collector, Establishment, Kaimur At Bhabua ---------------------------------- 2. 19.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the divorcee daughter of the deceased aggrieved by the denial for compassionate appointment by order dated 7.10.2011. Learned counsel submits from the divorce decree of the Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabua dated 25.8.2011 that she separated from her husband in December, 2007 during the life time of her father and was dependent upon her father. The other sister of the petitioner is married residing in her matrimonial home. The mother of the petitioner and her married sister have consented for her being considered for compassionate appointment. The objection taken by the respondents is beyond the terms of the circular dated 5.5.2010 which fully covers the 2 claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the State submitted that the circular dated 5.5.2010 is restricted to circumstances where a divorcee daughter is the only dependant. Any appointment on compassionate ground has to be strictly in terms of the circular regulating the same. The petitioner separated from her husband in 2007 before the death of her father on 22.11.2010. Her other sister is stated to be married and residing in her matrimonial home, ineligible for compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s mother has no objection to the petitioner being considered for compassionate appointment. If the petitioner was dependant upon her father during his life time on account of being separated from her husband and that has now been formalized by a Court decree, surely the death of the bread earner visits her with consequences along with her mother. The fact that her other sister may be happily married and residing in her matrimonial home cannot bring any succor to the petitioner and her mother by reason of the death of the bread earner. The circular dated 5.5.2010 has to be given a reasonable and purposeful 3 interpretation and not an interpretation which may defeat the very purpose of the circular itself. The impugned order rejecting her claim only on the ground that she had a married sister, and thus not the only claimant for compassionate appointment, is not in the spirit of the circular dated 5.5.2010. The order dated 7.10.2011 in so far the petitioner is concerned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee to take a fresh decision in accordance with law in light of the present discussion within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)