IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.977 of 2009 MEERA DEVI, wife of late Rishideo Yadav, resident of village Farda Prem Tola, P.O. Farda, P.S. Naya Ramnagar, Distt. Munger. Versus 1.BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna, through its Chairman. 2.The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna (Bihar). 3.The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna (Bihar). 4.The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electricity Board, Bhagalpur Electric Supply Area, Bhagalpur. 5.The Director, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna (Bihar). 6.The Deputy Director of Personnel (Adm.), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 7.The Additional Director General (Police) Vigilance Cell, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. ----------- For the Appellant:- Mr. Sanjiv Krishna Bariar,Advocate. For the Respondents:- Mr. Vinay keerti Singh, Advocate. 4 03-02-2010 Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.1290 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the writ application seeking relief for appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner on compassionate ground has been dismissed by recording a finding her such claim based on her deceased husband being a legitimate employee of the Board was itself pending investigation 2 in a criminal case. Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has however submitted that there is no dispute that the husband of the appellant-writ petitioner, namely, Rishideo Yadav was appointed by the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) on 9.9.1999 as an unskilled Khalasi on compassionate ground when his father Munilal Yadav, also an employee of the Board, had died in harness on 28.4.1993. He has also impressed upon us that on account of premature death of husband of the appellant-writ petitioner, namely, Rishideo Yadav on 17.6.2002 when an application was filed by the appellant-writ petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground the same infact had also found favour of the Zonal Compassionate Appointment Committee at the level of General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer Bhagalpur which in its meeting held on 1.10.2004 had recommended for such appointment on compassionate ground and therefore the only circumstances of a criminal case lodged by the Vigilance Police of the State of Bihar on 26.9.2006 after four years of death of her husband cannot be a valid 3 ground to deny compassionate appointment of the appellant writ petitioner. In this context the learned counsel has also submitted that the allegation in the criminal case that the real Munilal Yadav was alive till the year 2005 and his elder brother Taniklal Yadav by impersonating him had continued to serve the Board from 1962 till his death on 28.9.1993 and that her husband Rishilal Yadav was actually was the son of Taniklal Yadav who too fraudulently by claiming himself to be son of Munilal Yadav had obtained employment on compassionate ground on 9.9.1999 is an absurd and unbelievable story and on that basis alone the Board and its officials can not be permitted to defeat the legitimate claim of compassionate appointment of the widow appellant writ petitioner specially when the authorities of the Board had even sanctioned and were also paying family pension to her treating her to be the widow of Late Rishideo Yadav. The aforesaid submissions in the first blush appear to be quite attractive but on a closer scrutiny its hollowness is exposed to the brink inasmuch as the moment it is found that the authorities of the Board had 4 reasons to believe that the husband of the appellant writ petitioner was himself an imposter, their action of refusing appointment to appellant writ petitioner on compassionate ground cannot be held to be bad much less arbitrary. It has to be always kept in mind that before appointing the appellant writ petitioner on compassionate ground the Board has to be fully satisfied that her husband Late Rishilal Yadav was a bonafide and legitimate employee of the Board. The case of the Board however in the counter affidavit filed in the connected writ petition in this regard is quite specific that Late Rishilal Yadav himself was an imposter, who though being the son of Taniklal Yadav had himself obtained appointment on compassionate ground in 1999 by falsely claiming himself to be the son of Munilal Yadav as also declaring Munilal Yadav to be dead in the year 1993 whereas the said Munilal Yadav was infact alive till 2005 and for this reliance has been placed on an enquiry report and the consequential F.I.R. lodged by Cabinet Vigilance department of the State Government. Normally that should have been the end of the matter but as the counsel has questioned the correctness 5 of such decision of the Board in a very determined manner by alleging bias and malafides against the officials of the Board this court has carefully re- appraised all the materials in the pleadings of the parties. In this regard from a bare perusal of the detailed F.I.R. lodged by the Cabinet Vigilance department it becomes clear that the authorities of the Board had formed their such opinion on cogent materials inasmuch as it appears that from an enquiry on a complaint in the year 2002 vide vigilance case no. 29/Munger/8/2002 it was found that actually one Munilal Yadav was appointed as a Khalasi in the Board in 1962 on casual basis and though he had abandoned his job soon thereafter some time in 1963 well before becoming a permanent employee, yet one Taniklal Yadav, the own elder brother of Munilal Yadav, by impersonating him i.e. Munilal Yadav could continue in service by playing fraud in league with the field officers of the Board till his death on 29.9.1993. In course of such enquiry the vigilance police had collected both documentary and oral evidence to show that the real Munilal Yadav was infact alive till 2005 and the person who had continued in service of the Board from 1963 till 6 his death in 1993 was actually one Tanik Lal Yadav, the own elder brother of Munilal Yadav. As a matter of fact the vigilance police had also traced the real Munilal Yadav in 2004 and had recorded his statement, collected his photograph and could also unearth that the real Munilal Yadav had only one son namely Bisheshwar Yadav, who too along Munilal Yadav had appeared before the officials of Vigilance Police department in course of such enquiry. The Vigilance Police infact having collected the photograph and finger prints of the real Munilal Yadav and getting them compared with the fake photograph and finger prints on the service book opened in the name Munilal Yadav had also arrived at a conclusion that it was Tanik Lal Yadav who had impersonated Munilal Yadav and after his death in 1993 while his two wives of Tanik lal Yadav namely Sanjhia Devi and Most. Titia Devi, claiming themselves to be the widow of Munilal Yadav were successful in getting family pension, the husband of appellant writ petitioner Rishilal Yadav, the actual son of Taniklal Yadav also cleverly managed to get his appointment on compassionate ground by raising a false claim of being 7 the son of Munilal Yadav. The Vigilance Police in this entire fraudulent transaction had also found the complicity of one Sri Kalicharan Yadav, the then Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Subdivision, Jamalpur, who in league with the then General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer Mr. B.P.Dutta had been found to have made interpolation in the service book of Munilal Yadav. It was also discovered by Vigilance Police that a false death certificate of Munilal Yadav, was infact prepared by the then Panchayat Sevak Sri Manoranjan Rai in collusion with the then Mukhiya Sri Mahendra Prasad Yadav and on the basis of forged death certificate the husband of the appellant-writ petitioner Rishideo Yadav had obtained his appointment on compassionate ground in 1999. Thus it is on the basis of all these findings arrived in course of an exhaustive enquiry conducted by the officials of Cabinet Vigilance Department of the State Government in a period of four years between 2002 to 2006 that the F.I.R. in question was filed by the Vigilance Police on 26.9.2006, leading to institution of Vigilance Police Station case no. 059/2006 for offence 8 under Section 182/191/ 192/193/ 196/197/ 198/199/200/419/420/467/468/471/477/120B of Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the two widows of Late Tanik Lal Yadav, namely Sanjhia Devi and Titia Devi as also Bablu Yadav son of Late Tanik Lal Yadav as well as the official of the Board namely Kalicharan Yadav and the then Panchayat Sewak Manoranjan Rai and the then Mukhia Mahendra Prasad Yadav. In the aforesaid F.I.R. (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) there is a full narration as to how Rishideo Yadav, the husband of the appellant writ petitioner though actually being the son of Tanik Lal Yadav had fraudulently obtained appointment on compassionate ground in 1999 by falsely claiming to be the son of Munilal Yadav who infact was alive till 2005. It thus becomes clear that the said F.I.R. and the resultant criminal case has a direct nexus to the claim of compassionate appointment of the appellant writ petitioner based on her being the dependent wife of a legitimate employee of the Board and if therefore the Board on account of pendency of the criminal case has refused to appoint the appellant, the 9 widow of Rishideo Yadav, on compassionate ground at least till its disposal, the same cannot be held to be either illegal or arbitrary inasmuch as, the Board was not bound to allow such forgery/fraud to be perpetuated also by appointing the appellant writ petitioner on compassionate ground. This Court, in fact, has also perused the specific stand of the vigilance police department in paragraph no. 7 of its counter affidavit that the real Munilal Yadav was alive till his death in the year 2005, a fact which was never denied by the appellant writ petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit filed by her in the writ petition. Thus, if Munilal Yadav was alive till 2005, as is the case of the Vigilance Police in its F.I.R. containing the gist of its enquiry, the appellant-writ petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment on the ground of his being the widow of Rishideo Yadav, who himself is alleged to have obtained his appointment compassionate ground by making a false claim of Munilal Yadav to be dead in the year 1993. This Court therefore does not find any error in the decision of the Board refusing to appoint the appellant writ petitioner on 10 compassionate ground till the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case and the findings recorded as well as the conclusion arrived to the same effect by the learned Single judge would also require no interference. We also no merit in even that part of submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that the Zonal Compassionate Appointment committee in its meeting dated 1.10.2004 before filing of the F.I.R. had found the appellant-writ petitioner fit for her being appointed on compassionate ground inasmuch as, in the proceedings of the said meeting, copy whereof have been placed by the Board in its separate counter affidavit, it has been clearly recorded that as the issue of appointment of Rishideo Yadav on compassionate ground on the basis of his being alleged son of Munilal Yadav was itself pending enquiry of the Vigilance Police department and therefore the decision with regard to appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner on compassionate ground had to be deferred till receipt of a specific direction from the Apex Board. Thus, it would be clear that at no stage any authority of the Board had even found the appellant-writ petitioner fit for being appointed on compassionate 11 ground. That being so we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)