IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12988 of 2006 1. MANISH KUMAR, S/O SHREE BASHISHTHA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-MUSHAHARI, E.T.C. POLICE STATION- MUSHAHARI, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, PRIMARY SECONDARY AND MASS EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUZAFFARPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 01.07.2010 The mother of petitioner died in harness on 17.07.2005. The father of the petitioner was, at that time, a retired Government servant and, as per the report of the Circle Officer dated 17.02.2006, he was drawing a sum of Rs.3,379/- as pension. As per the report the family was having annual income or Rs.35,280/- as family pension. Petitioner, the eldest son, after death of his mother applied for compassionate appointment. The same was rejected by order dated 28.08.2006, as contained in Annexure-7, on the ground that family was having sufficient financial resources. A Bench of this Court by order dated 2 03.05.2010 directed learned counsel for the State to inform as to what is the definition of below poverty line families in this State on per capita basis to consider as to whether as per the income report by the authorities the family of the petitioner which included his father was below poverty line or not. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has not been able to receive instructions and, therefore, he is not in a position to inform this Court whether the family of the petitioner falls within below poverty line or not. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner informs that now the father of the petitioner has also died on 15.07.2008 and, therefore, his pension or family pension has completely stopped. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the report of the Circle Officer, as contained in Annexure-4, to show that the family is now survived by five children of which the petitioner is the eldest. The report shows that the petitioner is unemployed and the other children are pursuing their studies. The report also shows 3 that the family is landless and they have only a bicycle in the form of movable property. It also shows that none of the members of the family is having any independent business or occupation. Apparently, at least after death of the father the family is undergoing a financial crisis. Therefore, the application of the petitioner deserves to be considered on merits afresh. The impugned order dated 28.08.2006, as contained in Annexure-7, so far as it relates to the petitioner is, therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment on merits and pass fresh orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)