IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4923 of 2010 1. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE GULAB MALAKAR R/O MOHALLA- SHEOPURI RAMCHANDRAPUR, P.O.- BIHARSHARIF, P.S.- LAHERI, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, HANDLOOM AND SERICULTURE DIRECTORATE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE NIRMAN PRABANDHAK, BIGHFIT, CENTRAL PROCESSING PLANT, BIHARSHARIF (NALANDA) NAMELY OM PRAKASH PATHAK 5. THE MAHAPRABANDHAK/(GENERAL MANAGER), DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, NALANDA ----------- 2/ 09/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The father of the petitioner was engaged as a dumping machine helper on daily wages. He came to this Court with a claim for regularization in C.W.J.C. No.7249/91 along with others. The Court directed his case to be considered in accordance with law. On 26.9.1998 the father of the petitioner was regularized making a specific reference to the order of this Court with effect from the date of regularization. The order states that he shall be deemed to be a permanent employee from the date of regularization. There was no limitation contained in the order of regularization that the post on which he was being regularized shall lapse with his superannuation. The father of the petitioner was deceased in harness on 22.3.2007. The petitioner then sought compassionate appointment which was rejected by an order dated 9.7.2009 stating that the - 2 - regularization was an exception in view of an order of the Court and that it was subject to the condition that the post shall lapse with the superannuation of the employee. The petitioner questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No.15084/09 contending that there was no such condition in the order of regularization. The writ application was disposed with the observation that if what the petitioner contends is correct, the ground to deny compassionate appointment becomes non est. Directions were issued to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind to the issues discussed in the order and the necessary materials with regard to the appointment of the father of the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, the impugned order dated 5.1.2010 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is perverse and does not comply with the directions of the Court and is clearly based on non est grounds. Learned counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. The writ application was filed on 19.3.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. The second copy was for the official respondents to expedite filing of a counter affidavit to assist the Court in timely dispensation of justice. If that was not enough to wake up - 3 - the respondents, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a claim for compassionate appointment has its own urgency. If the Court had passed an order, reasoned in nature, indicating the manner in which the respondents were required to decide issues and they have passed an order in pursuance thereof, the order has to be decided on the basis of the recitals contained in the order, whether it be sustainable or not. If the order is speaking in nature, it cannot be supplemented or explained in a counter affidavit. No useful purpose is going to be served by adjourning the matter for a counter affidavit. The impugned order simply refers to the regularization dated 26.9.1998 of the father of the petitioner reiterating the contents of its earlier rejection dated 9.7.2009 that his appointment was to lapse with the superannuation when the post shall no more subsist. Contrary to the directions of the Court to pass a reasoned and speaking order with application of mind to the necessary materials with regard to the appointment of the father of the petitioner, the impugned order does not make reference to any other order prior or subsequent to 26.9.1998 limiting the nature of the appointment of the father of the petitioner. All that it refers to is that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on query made had opined that the petitioner had no case for compassionate appointment. - 4 - It is not stated query was made by the respondents to the Department of Administrative and Personnel Reforms. It was for the respondents to place full materials in their order if there was any earlier or subsequent order modifying or altering the order of regularization dated 26.9.1998. In absence of any such discussion in the order dated 5.1.2009, this Court is satisfied that it does not meet the requirements of the directions given by the Court of the manner in which the representation was required to be disposed. That renders the order dated 5.1.2010 arbitrary and illegal suffering from complete non-application of mind and refusing to deal with relevant issues and taking into consideration irrelevant issues. The order dated 5.1.2010 being mere repetition of the earlier order dated 9.7.2009 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy regulating the same within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)