IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7058 of 2006 1.URMILA DEVI, widow of late Arjun Singh 2.Gopal Krishna, son of late Arjun Singh Both resident of village Dumri, P.S.Barahiya Dist. Lakhisarai---------------petitioners With CWJC No. 7350 of 2006 1.Yoshodha Devi, widow of late Ram Lochan Mahto 2.Anil Kumar, son of late Ramf Lochan Mahto Both resident of village & P.O. Gokhula, P.S. Paru and Dist. Muzaffarpur-----petitioners Versus 1.Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. Through its Chairman, Biscomaun Bhawan,Patna 2.Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., Biscomaun Bhawan,Patna 3.Finance Controller, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., Biscomaun Bhawan,Patna 4.Account Officer, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., Biscomaun Bhawan,Patna 5.Special Officer (Establishment) Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd.,Biscomaun Bhawan Ltd., Biscomaun Bhawan,Patna-respondents (in both the cases) ----------- For the petitioners :M/S Abu Haider,Jahan Ara For the respondent Biscomaun:Mr.Rajesh Pd. Choudhary. ---- 2. 28.2.2009 Both the writ petitions, since they stand on identical footing, are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Petitioner no.1 in both the cases are widows and petitioner no.2 in both the cases are their sons who seek compassionate appointment for the sons on the death of their respective husband/father while in service of Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. (Biscomaun). The contention of the petitioners is that the 2 application for compassionate appointment was filed within time but yet no decision has been taken by the authorities of the Biscomaun. In support of the same learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench decision dated 28.1.2005 of this Court in LPA No. 462 of 2004 (Amar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & ors.), in which it was held that there being no Resolution of the Board of Directors withdrawing/recalling the earlier decision of the Biscomaun accepting the Government Resolution regarding compassionate appointment, it must be held that the said Resolution still holds the field and, accordingly, the authorities of the Biscomaun were directed to consider the application for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate speaking order thereon. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioners is exactly same as that of the petitioner of that case. Learned counsel for the Biscomaun relies upon a Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 20.8.2005 in which considering the case of one Pankaj Kumar Singh, son of a deceased employee of Biscomaun and rejecting the same it has been decided not to consider the case of compassionate 3 appointment of the dependent of any deceased employee on the ground that there were already surplus employees over and above the requirement and also financial stringency as a result of which Biscomaun is not in a position to pay salary. Although in the case of Pankaj Kumar Singh a general decision has been taken not to appoint any one on compassionate ground yet the said Resolution dated 20.8.2005 of the Board does not comply with the requirement laid down in the Division Bench decision in Amar Kumar’s case (supra) since no Resolution has been passed withdrawing or recalling the earlier Resolution of Biscomaun accepting the Government decision in the matter of compassionate appointment. In the said circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed and the authorities of Biscomaun are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/