IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6439 of 1997 RABIA KHATOON, wife of late Shaukat Ali, resident of village Lodipur, P.S. and P.O. Khusrupur, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, R.E.O.2, R.E. (North), Bihar Circle, Technical Secretariat, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division Darbhanga 5. The Executive Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Darbhanga 6. The Executive Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Begusarai 7. The Engineer in Chief cum Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna … Respondents ----------- 7. 17.5.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, Addl. Advocate General No. IX, appears for the State. From a perusal of the writ application it would appear that out of two following relief: “I) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to give suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. III) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to make payment of entire dues of late Shaukat Ali 2 including the payment of salary pending since 1985 to 19.10.1992 to the petitioner who is the widow and legal heir of late Ali.” the petitioner will not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as it is an admitted position that her husband late Shaukat Ali was a work charge employee whose services were never regularized. Mr. Ahmad, therefore, is correct in submitting that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2004(4) PLJR 889, the petitioner would not be eligible to get appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as the Division Bench has held that the Government policy for compassionate appointment clearly lays down that the deceased employee must be working against a sanctioned post. It is well known and well settled that there can be no sanctioned post in a work charge establishment which continues on year to year basis and has its limited life till continuation and completion of work. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner for 3 appointment on compassionate ground must be and is hereby rejected. As with regard to the other prayer relating to payment of entire dues of the husband of the petitioner including payment of salary since 1985 to 19.10.1992 to the petitioner, widow of late Shaukat Ali, this Court would not be in a position to issue any firm direction in absence of the counter affidavit. From the reading of the writ application, it appears that the husband of the petitioner was transferred on 3.1.1987 from Darbhanga to Begusarai but he did not comply the said order of transfer and had challenged his order of transfer in C.W.J.C.No. 3759/1986 which was disposed of by an order dated 25.8.1986 with a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Darbhanga to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner. It further transpires from the reading of the writ application that when the said representation did not yield any fruitful result, late husband of the petitioner filed another writ application being C.W.J.C.No. 3137/1988 but the same was dismissed in limine on 4 8.9.1988, whereafter he had moved the Apex Court in S.L.P.No. 10227/1989 and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of by an order dated 25.9.1995 on the ground that it had abated after the death of the husband of the petitioner. It is however not clear as to whether the services of the husband of the petitioner were ever terminated on account of his remaining absent from duty and non- compliance of the order of transfer. In fact Mr. Ahmad very fairly points out that from the order dated 3.6.1996 passed by the authority it would be clear that the petitioner was held to be not entitled for grant of family pension on the ground that her husband had remained absent from duty for a period over five years. In the opinion of this Court if there was no order of termination of service passed in the life time of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner being widow would be entitled to the benefits as if her husband had died while continuing in service. It would be a different thing that the husband of the petitioner would not be 5 entitled for payment of salary for the period he had remained absent from duty but other service benefits as is admissible to a work charge employee would be definitely payable to the widow petitioner after death of her husband. As noted above, there is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and therefore, this Court would direct respondent no.2, the Secretary cum Commissioner of Rural Development Department, to look into this aspect of the matter and decide as to the entitlement of the petitioner with regard to payment of death cum retirement benefit of her husband late Shaukat Ali. Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months and the amount, if any, found payable to the petitioner, also must be tendered to her within the same period. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 6