IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6101 of 2006 SHOBHA KUMARI,D/o late Satya Narayan Safi, resident of village- Narhiya, P.S. Lookahi, District- Madhubani Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through District Magistrate-cum- Chairman Compassionate committee, Muzaffarpur. 2.District Establishment Deputy Collector, Muzaffarpur 3. Office Superintendent Collectorate, Muzaffarpur. ---- For the petitioner: Mr. Diwakar Prasad Karn,Advocate For the State : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey,J.C. to G.P.19 --- 2. 4.2.2009 The petitioner seeks quashing of the Memo No.222 dated 25.2.2006, which is a copy of the proceedings of the District Compassinate Committee issued under the signature of the District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on account of death of her father, who was admittedly in Government service on 27.6.2003. The rejection of her application is on the ground that the son of the deceased employee is a Clerk in the Madhubani Regional Rural Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the report of the Circle Officer, Lookahi dated 15.9.2005 in which it is stated that the deceased left behind him two daughters, one son, one daughter-in- law and three grand sons, out of whom one of the daughters is married and the son is working in the said Bank on the post of Clerk-cum- Cashier and is living separately from his family. For the said reasons relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & others: 2007 (4) PLJR 511, it is 2 submitted that the case of the petitioner, who is unmarried daughter, ought to have been considered by the respondent authorities and as such, the impugned order is bad on that account since it is admittedly the finding of the respondent authorities themselves that the employed son is living separately from before. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that apart from the factum of employment of the son in the Regional Rural Bank even the said report dated 15.9.2005 of the Circle Officer, Lookahi clearly mentions that the income of the petitioner’s mother from all sources, which includes family pension and agriculture income, is to the extent of Rs. 80,900/- per annum and the same is sufficient for the up-keep of two members of the family, i.e., the widow and her daughter. On a consideration of the impugned order dated 25.2.2006, it is evident that the rejection is on the sole ground that the brother of this petitioner was working in the Regional Rural Bank, but nothing has been adverted as to the fact that he is living separately from his family members. Further the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner’s mother gets family pension and she has agriculture income is of no avail, as the same is not the ground on which the order of rejection has been passed. In the above circumstances, the writ application is allowed and the matter is remanded to the District Compassionate Committee, Muzaffarpur to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid decision in the case of Anil Kumar ( supra ) as 3 also taking into account the financial condition of the petitioner and her mother as reported by the Circle Officer. The said decision must be taken within a period of four months from the date of production/ receipt of a copy of this order. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)