IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6518 of 2011 Sunita Devi wife of Late Yogendra Mentar of East Lohanipur Ambedkar Colony Khadpar P.S. Kadamkuan, District- Patna……………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhawan, New Alipora M-Block, Calcutta-700053. 2. The Addl. Director (C.S.) M/O, Environment and Forest, Paryabaran Bhawan, C.C.O., Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110011. 3. The Officer Incharge, Zoological Survey of India, road no. 11/D, Rajendra Nagar, Patna-16. 4. The Senior Accounts Office, Pay & Account Officer, (B-x 834/4) A.J.C. Rose Road, Calcutta-20. 5. The Administrative Officer, Zoological Survey of India under Ministry of Environment and Forest Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodipur, New Delh- 110003……………………………………………Respondents ----------- 2. 08.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. The claim for compassionate appointment by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents and hence he preferred O.A. No. 256 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. That has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 1st February, 2011. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 10.1.2007 on the post of Peon. Before the claim for compassionate appointment could be considered, guidelines dated 13th April, 2007 (Annexure-4) was issued by the Ministry of Environment Forest, Govt. of India informing that action for filling up Group-‘D’ post 2 through recruitment should be stopped forthwith because as per policy no Group-‘D’ posts lying vacant shall be filled up and the work shall be taken by outsourcing. In view of such guidelines the concerned authorities declined to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner. An attempt was made to challenge the guidelines on the ground that when there is a policy for compassionate appointment in respect of other category of posts, the decision not to fill up Group-‘D’ post is discriminatory. Another submission was that the policy has come in April, 2007 and, therefore, it cannot apply to the petitioner for whom cause of action arose in January, 2007. The aforesaid submissions have no merit. Group-‘D’ posts constitute a class by themselves. Further, a claim for compassionate appointment is not a claim based on any right because it is an exception to the requirement of filling of posts under the State in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On that basis in a recent judgment relating to change of policy in respect of compassionate appointment in Banks, the Supreme Court has held that the pending applications for compassionate appointment shall be governed by the subsequent policy because in matter of compassionate appointment, a claimant has no vested legal right. Thus on merits, we find no good case to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition 3 is, therefore, dismissed. If the petitioner is eligible and applies for any post other than Group-‘D’ post, the authorities shall to consider such claim in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)