IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10607 of 2011 Saket Kumar S/O Late Naresh Prasad R/O Vill.-Pandooi, P.S. Parasbigha, Distt.-Jehanabad. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director, Industry Bihar Patna. 3. The Joint Director, Industry Bihar Patna. 4. The General Manager, District Industry Centre, Gaya. ----------- 02. 21.9.2011 I.A. No. 6480 of 2011 has been filed by one Pushpa Devi praying therein to implead her as a petitioner as well as for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.9.2004 by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Directorate of Industries, District Industries Centre, Gaya. The short facts are that husband of the petitioner died in harness on 25.2.1997. He was said to be a Class-III employee working under the respondents. Application was filed by the wife for compassionate appointment but respondents were not willing to consider that claim on the ground that the employee concerned was not a Government servant. The issue whether such persons working in the District Industries Centre were employees of the State, came to be decided in series of writ applications filed in the year 1994. Matter was decided in favour of the persons on 13.3.1997 which gave a direction to the respondents to treat such persons as Government employees. Proper notification thereafter came to be issued declaring such persons as Government employees. 2 In other words, when the application was filed by the wife, her husband was already treated to be a Government servant. Then came the order rejecting the claim of the wife of the deceased employee on the ground that she did not have the requisite minimum educational qualification of having passed 8th Std. She was found to be qualified only till 5th Std. which was held out against her. According to the wisdom of the respondents, it disqualified her from such consideration. The claim of the son of the late employee too was rejected on the ground that the death had occurred more than five years ago and there was a time bar. The son as well as mother Pushpa Devi came before this Court in CWJC No. 5128 of 2008 which was decided by an order dated 19.1.2010. Order of the Court passed in such writ application is Anneuxre-6 to the present writ application. Writ was disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to consider the claim in accordance with law. The son came before this Court and mother too has joined through interlocutory application challenging the decision or the wisdom of the respondents to treat her claim as well. One aspect which is required to be looked into is that the initial rejection of the claim of the wife of the employee seems to be on erroneous grounds. The reason held out that the wife did not have minimum eligibility in terms of qualification seems to be in the teeth of not only the Government circular but also a decision which had been rendered in similar circumstance 3 in the case of Lakshmi Bhatt vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 512. This is a short order wherein the learned single Judge taking into consideration Clause VI of the Government circular dealing with the appointment on compassionate ground held that for a lady candidate she was required to be literate and not Class-VIII pass. Rejection on similar kind therefore was set aside and direction was issued for appointment of that petitioner on compassionate ground. The question which arises now for consideration by this Court is that when the claim of the wife of the employee was rejected on erroneous application of the Government provisions and the circular whether right of the wife gets extinguished or whether such an order would be required to be interfered with. If the law on this question is taken into consideration as has been held in the case of Lakshmi Bhatt (supra), then Pushpa Devi has rightly filed I.A. seeking quashing of the earlier order by which her claim was rejected irrespective of the objection they may have against the claim of the son being time barred. Applicability of law as well as the rules/circulars have to be universally made applicable and every State functionary is supposed to know the law. If a decision has been rendered in conflict and ignorance then right will surely accrue in favour of the wife of the employee and the Court will have no hesitation in rising to the occasion. 4 The illegality of the order rejecting the claim of the wife of the employee would also continue to perpetuate. For that reason, therefore, Anneuxre-7 which is order dated 22.9.2004 passed by the Director, Industries (Incharge), rejecting the claim of Pushpa Devi is hereby quashed. Direction is issued upon the respondents to take steps for appointment of Pushpa Devi on compassionate ground within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. Writ is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)