IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.172 of 2007 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE KAILASH PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-ABHI-CHHAPRA, P.O.- BASANTPUR PATTI, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY BERTH BIHAR RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, COLLECTORATE OF MUZAFFARPUR. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.M.P. Shukla, Adv. For the State : Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, SC-22 and Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. ----------- 2 16.07.2010 Petitioner’s father died in harness on 02.11.1996 from class-IV post. Petitioner accordingly applied for his compassionate appointment on 11.06.1997. His application was considered by the District Compassionate Committee and was rejected by resolution dated 04.05.1998 on the ground that the first son of the deceased employee was already in service. Petitioner moved this Court six years after through CWJC No. 7364 of 2004. From Annexure-B of the counter affidavit, it appears that it was not 2 informed to the Court that the application of the petitioner already stood rejected and, therefore, by order dated 31.01.2005 this Court disposed of the writ application of the petitioner with a direction to the respondents that his application for compassionate appointment be decided in accordance with law as quickly as possible but not later than a period of 8 weeks from the date of service of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the same was considered in the meeting of the Committee dated 08.12.2005 and the case of the petitioner was rejected on the same ground that one of the sons of the deceased employee was in Government service. Petitioner has challenged this resolution of the Committee in this writ application as annexed as Annexure-11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the elder brother of the petitioner is not looking after the family and has purchased land in the name of his wife prior to the death of his father. On these grounds learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities should have appreciated that the first son of 3 the deceased employee was not looking after the family and, therefore, other son was entitled for compassionate appointment. The said assertion of the petitioner is too vague to be accepted by this Court. In absence of any claim of complete separation in the family, petitioner is not entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment in teeth of the Government resolution putting a complete bar to the appointment of any other family member on compassionate ground in case of one member of the family being already in Government Service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the said son of the deceased employee has been discharged from service in 2007. This event is much subsequent to death of the employee and the date of application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment. The eligibility of an applicant for his compassionate appointment has to be considered as on the date of his application as per the rules of the Government at that time. Any subsequent event or change of status of any family 4 member almost 10 years after death of the Government employee and almost 9 years after submission of application by the petitioner for his compassionate appointment cannot make the petitioner eligible for consideration of his application on merits. This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)