IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13178 of 2004 MANAGER SINGH, son of late Bishun Singh, resident of village – Amadarh, P.O. – Karmaini, P S – Sanjhauli, District – Rohtas, at present working on the post of Revenue Clerk, Sone Nahar Sub-Divisional Office. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri, Rohtas. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Circle, Buxar. 5. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Buxar. 6. Assistant Engineer, Sone Canal, Sub-Division- Nokha, Buxar. 7. Tulsi Singh son late Bishun Singh, resident of village – Amadarh, P.O. Karmaini, P S – Sanjhauli, District – Rohtas. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh. For the State: Mr. S S Mishra, AC to GA 5. For respondent No.7: M/S. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey and Dr. Anshuman. ------ 03. 9.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and private respondent No.7. Petitioner is younger son of one Bishun Singh who was a permanent employee under the respondent Water Resources Department. Since he died in harness, family approached the respondents for grant of employment to one of the eligible family members under the compassionate head. The case of the elder brother Tulsi Singh could not be considered for such an appointment because he was stated to be over age. No decision with regard to appointing the present petitioner also came to be taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee which led to filing of CWJC No. 11558 of 1996 by the present petitioner. An order came to be passed by the High Court, which is Anneuxre-1 dated 3.7.2000. 2 Direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of appointment of the petitioner with a condition that once appointed he will have an obligation to take care of the deceased employee’s family and he was obliged to give undertaking in this regard. A contempt also came to be filed for such an appointment which begot the petitioner his appointment on the post. However, after the appointment of the petitioner on 31.12.2002, he resiled from the responsibility. It may also be recorded that in the letter of appointment, clause-3 categorically stated that the petitioner had an obligation to take care of the family and meet the expenses. The dispute of non-payment reached the respondent authorities and a decision was taken and communicated to the petitioner that he shall pay 30 per cent of the basic salary plus dearness allowances to his elder brother per month as his obligation. But the petitioner instead of complying with the said direction decided to challenge it in CWJC No. 9648 of 2004 which was dismissed. Looking at the attitude of the petitioner towards the commitment and the obligation which was imposed upon him, both by the court as well as in the letter of appointment, respondent authorities after giving him an opportunity terminated his service vide Annexure-12/2 dated 21.9.2004. The present writ is now to quash that order. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the order contained in Annexure-10 was passed, petitioner had taken steps for depositing that amount of money from the month of May, which would be evident from Annexure-11/1 but ignoring the said 3 fact, the order of termination came to be passed. Anneuxre-11/1 seems to be a very belated kind of steps taken by the petitioner towards meeting the obligation imposed upon him, both by the High Court and the respondent authorities while issuing the letter of appointment. The fact that the petitioner decided to challenge the direction for payment of 30 per cent of the basic pay and dearness allowances by way of writ application, is a clear indication that the petitioner had no intent or desire to meet the obligation despite the appointment being a conditional one subject to his meeting the obligation of the family members. Appointment under the compassionate head is not a fundamental right of any person but is an exception to the rule which has been held to be verging on violation of. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But despite such an aberration of the constitutional provision, if the petitioner was given employment under the circumstances and condition and if he failed to fulfil the same, he has no right to continue on the post. Respondents have done no wrong by removing him from service. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)