IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11064 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sudhir Kumar S/O Late Chhotelal Chaudhary R/O Vill Kashmirganj, P.O.& P.S.Masaurhi, Distt-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, P.W.D. Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-In-Chief , P.W.D. Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, N.H.Wing Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer , N.H.Circle Muzaffarpur 6. The Executive Engineer, Nh Division Gopalganj(At Dumeriaghat) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Singh Mr. Shree Nivas Madhuvan For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp16) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 14-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was regularized in service by a speaking order dated 1.3.2006. He was deceased in service on 4.9.2007 and thus the claim for compassionate appointment. The respondents have wrongly rejected the claim for compassionate appointment urging that the status of his deceased father as an absorbed employee was suspicious. Learned counsel for the State from paragraph-10 of Patna High Court CWJC No.11064 of 2010 (2) dt.14-11-2011 2 the counter affidavit submits that on 9.9.2008 the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, had required the Superintending Engineer concerned to issue show cause notice to those daily wage workers who had wrongly been regularized. The father of the petitioner was one of them. If the father of the petitioner was regularized on 26.7.2006, and the order was suspicious, it was for the respondents to raise the issue during his lifetime and/or during his service tenure. No show cause notice was given, let alone cancel the order of regularization. The only ground urged by the respondents is a letter dated 9.9.2008 directing issuance of a general show cause notice after the petitioner’s father was deceased. The question of examining the regularization of a dead person and passing orders with regard to his status simply does not arise. Matters attained finality on the date of his demise as may have existed on that date. The order dated 30.9.2009 at Annexure-9 to the writ application and the subsequent order dated 9.11.2010 at Annexure-F to the counter affidavit declining to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground that the regularization of his father was suspicious is therefore not sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside. Suspicion is not proof in the law. Let the claim of the petitioner for compassionate Patna High Court CWJC No.11064 of 2010 (2) dt.14-11-2011 3 appointment be now considered in accordance with law and fulfillment of the other conditions of eligibility regulating compassionate appointment within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Nothing in this order shall be deemed, construed or opined as a confirmation of the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment or otherwise, and which remains to be determined by the respondents in accordance with law except on the single question adjudicated by the Court. The writ application is disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)