IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.589 of 2007 Brajesh Kumar, son of late Maheshwari Prasad Mehta, resident of village Indrapur, Barhara, P.O. Indrapur Barhara, P.S. Raniganj, District Araria, Asstt. Teacher, posted at Middle School, Sisia, P.S. Korha and District Katihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Collector, Katihar, District Katihar 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar, P.S. and District Katihar 4. The Headmaster cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle School, Sisia, P.S. Korla and District Katihar 5. Smt. Chandani Devi, wife of late Maheshwari Prasad Mehta, resident of Mohalla Gandhi Nagar, Molvi tola Purnea, P.S. K.Hat, District Purnea … Respondents ----------- 5. 21.7.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order only achieves to secure interest of the widow of the deceased for maintaining herself and her two children who are still dependent on her, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, wherein the petitioner has been directed to give 1/3rd of his monthly earning to respondent no.5, his step-mother. Let it be noted that the petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate ground with definite terms and conditions that he will have to support the dependent of his 2 father and that his father had a wife and issues from that wife whom the petitioner calls step-mother. The petitioner should not forget that if the step-mother, respondent no.5, had opted for her own employment she being in the category of wife and having the first preference in the matter of compassionate appointment, the petitioner could never have been appointed on compassionate ground. That being so, once the petitioner has obtained appointment by giving an undertaking of supporting the dependent of his deceased father, this Court would not find the amount or quantum of 1/3rd salary to be exorbitant even after taking into account that respondent no.5 is receiving family pension. The father of the petitioner had left behind the petitioner as a son and also a wife and two sons and daughters from the second wife and therefore, if even today the wife and the two sons are requiring support from the income of the petitioner which he has only because of the compassionate appointment offered to him with his 3 undertaking, he cannot escape the liability by making payment of the amount. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/