IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10026 of 2007 MRITUNJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE MUNDRIKA SHARMA, VILLAGE KHALKO CHAK, WARD NO. 10, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, MAKHDUMPUR, P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE FOOD COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE FOOD CORPORATION, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 3.THE DISTRICT MANAGER, STATE FOOD CORPORATION, GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 07.04.2011 Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation. Though this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 08.08.2007, on an assumption that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was not considered, the counter affidavit would go to show that the case of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected by the competent authority in its order dated 11.09.2007 vide notification no. 6820 (Annexure-B). In the said order, the following three reasons have been given for denying him compassionate appointment, namely:- 1- fuxe funs'kd i"kZn dh 105 oha cSBd esa vko';drk vk/kkfjr 2 lHkh fpfUgr inksa esa vuqlkj p0o0deZ0 dh dqy 188 in dh vko';drk gSA orZeku esa 782 p0o0deZ0 fuxe esa dk;Zjr gSA bl izdkj fuxe esa 594 p0o0deZ0 vko';drk ls vf/kd gSA 2- lfpo] [kk|] vkiwfRrZ ,oa okf.kT; foHkkx fcgkj ljdkj] iVuk ds i=kad 2453 fnukad 26-6-96 ds }kjk funs'k fn;k x;k gS fd fuxe esa ubZ fu;qfDr ugha dh tk;A rnksijkUr fuxe esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ugha dh tk jgh gSA 3- fnukad02-4-04 dks fuxe funs'kd i"kZn dh 110 oha cSBd esa iqu% fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ij iwoZ ls yxk, x, jksd ;Fkkor jgsaxs ,oa Hkfo"; esa Hkh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ugha dh tk;sxhA bl lEcU/k esa eq[;ky; i=kad 2654 fnukad 05-04-04 ls vko';d funs'k Hkh fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa dks vkyksd esa Jh e`R;at; dqekj iq= Lo0 eqfUnzdk 'kekZ] HkwriwoZ p0o0deZ0 x;k }kjk vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq izkIr vkosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA izcU/k funs'kd ds vkns'k lsA g0@ eq[; iz'kkluA Though Mr. Sharma would like to go into the veracity and correctness of such reasons in the aforesaid impugned order but then as there is no rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the specific assertion made in the counter affidavit that there is complete ban on compassionate appointment in the corporation and that the financial position of the Corporation is in total mess, this Court will have no other option but to hold that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was not possible. It is well settled that if the employer is not in a position to offer employment either due to want of vacancy or on account of financial crunch, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be made 3 enforceable in such organization. The paying capacity of the employer, therefore, has a material bearing on the issue of compassionate appointment. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is however, made clear that if at any point of time, the Corporation will take its decision to appoint persons on compassionate ground, it will not discriminate the case of the petitioner and the same would receive due consideration with cases of other similarly situated persons strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations this application is dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)