IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13710 of 2005 SUSHILA DEVI w/o Late Ram Kishore Thakur, resident of Patthar Road, Saristababd, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Patna University, Patna, through the Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 4. The Principal , B. N. college, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 4. 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for her appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband on 30.1.2002 while working as a Laboratory Incharge in the B. N. College of Patna University. Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out to the counter affidavit filed by the University wherein the University had already recommended the case for appointment of the petitioner by pointing out to the State Government that though initially the husband of the petitioner was working as Laboratory Incharge in the department of Psychology in B. 2 N. College against an unsanctioned post but subsequently, the said post was sought to be converted into the post of Demonstrator and as such the plea that the husband of the petitioner was holding unsanctioned post could not have been made a ground for denying the petitioner her appointment on compassionate ground. In this context, he has also placed on record a reply to the counter affidavit from which it appears that the University in view of the Government decision followed by the decision of Syndicate had redesignated the husband of the petitioner, late Ram Kishore Thakur as a Demonstrator w.e.f. 17.11.1980. Once this notification has been issued by the University on 30.6.2007, the plea of husband working against unsanctioned post of Laboratory Incharge automatically goes away and the respondent authorities of the State Government and the University would be required to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the State has pointed out that it is for the University to make a recommendation for appointment of the petitioner to the State Government. From Annexure D to the counter affidavit, it is more than 3 clear that such recommendation was made way back on 23.8.2004 and the matter has since remained pending with the State Government. The widow still has liability of two sons as also has to maintain herself and her family pension of Rs.920/ per month that too a period of five years from the date of death of her husband would be wholly insufficient for maintaining a family of at least three persons. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the competent authority of the State Government to reconsider its decision and since the University has already recommended for relaxation of age of the petitioner in her appointment on compassionate ground, a final decision with regard to both relaxation of age and appointment of the petitioner must be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the University in this regard will be required to do something more beyond making of the recommendation vide Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, the competent authority of the University also must do the same so that the whole exercise must be completed within a period of three months. 4 It is however made clear that this Court has not acceded to the prayer of Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner should now be appointed on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner on account of her being aged around 45 years may not be in the best of the interest of the family of the deceased-employee. This Court in fact would direct that the consideration which has to be made in terms of this order is confined only for the petitioner and not for her son who was a minor on the date of death of his father, when such cause of action for compassionate appointment had arisen. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)