IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10570 of 2007 CHANDRADEO RABIDAS @ CHANDRADEO Kumar son of Lal Mohan Rabidas @ Lal Mohan Das, resident of Mohalla Noor Sarai P. O. & P. S. Noor Sarai, District- Nalanda. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Inspector General of Home Guards, Bihar at Patna. 3. The Commandant of Home Guards, Madhepur. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate ground on the plea that he is the eldest son of his father, late Lal Mohan Rabidas and therefore he ought to have been considered and appointed in preference to his younger brother Krishnadeo Kumar. In this context, Mr. Ram Janam Maharaj, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that not only the policy of the Government but also the judgment of this Court is directly on this point that it is the eldest son, who has to be first considered for appointment on compassionate ground and therefore the recommendation made by the authorities as reflected in the counter affidavit recommending the case of the younger brother 2 of the petitioner, Krishnadeo Kumar is contrary to the law laid down on this score. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with the help of the counter affidavit would submit that it is the family of five persons wherein four of them do not trust in the petitioner by taking a specific plea that the petitioner was living separately even in the life time of his father, the deceased employee to that extent. He has also explained that the mother of the petitioner herself had sworn an affidavit and two unmarried sisters had filed their application which have been made part of the counter affidavit. He would also submit that it was in this background after making enquiry, the competent authority had recommended the case of the younger brother of the petitioner, Krishnadeo Kumar for his selection and appointment on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion of this Court, in normal circumstances the eldest son will have definitely the first right for consideration but then as the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to maintain the dependent family members of the deceased employee, the 3 authorities will definitely have to look into this aspect as to who amongst the same category of dependents will be in a better position to maintain the family. As per the Government Circular wife, son, unmarried daughter and widow of predeceased son in that order of preference respectively are category of relatives who can be appointed. Thus when the wife of deceased employee is found fit to be appointed, there would be no question of consideration of other three categories including the son. It is only when the wife is not eligible for being appointed; a son is to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. If the deceased employee had more than one son, only the wife will have a say by nominating as to who amongst the dependent sons should be appointed. It is not that such nomination of the wife will be the final word and in fact authorities will be always in a position to adjudge the comparative requirement of the family by taking view of other family members. In the present case, not only the wife of the deceased employee, the mother of the petitioner but also 4 three other dependents including the younger brother and two unmarried sisters have faith in the younger brother. Thus, this Court would not find any error in decision making process adopted by the respondents in recommending the case of the younger brother of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. There is, however, another facet to this case. The petitioner admittedly is a family member of the deceased employee and claims that he has got no employment for supporting himself. It is the part of condition of appointment on compassionate ground that such person appointed on compassionate ground will have to maintain all the dependent family members of the deceased employee. In that view of the matter, if and when the younger brother of the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground, he will have to also maintain the petitioner till the petitioner does not get settled. As the younger brother, Krishnadeo Kumar has not been made party to this writ application, this Court would not like to say anything more but then if Krishnadeo Kumar after his appointment does not maintain the petitioner, it 5 would be open for the petitioner to make complaint before the appointing authority of Krishnadeo Kumar who will then take his decision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)