IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2170 of 2008 1.RAJESH PRASAD, son of late Surendra Kumar 2.Smt.Lalita Devi, W/o late Surendra Kumar Both are resident of village Mirjapur, P.S.Rahui, District Nalanda-------------------------petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Commissioner-cum-Secretary Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 2.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 3.The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 4.The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Bhagalpur 5.Deputy Collector, Establishment, Bhagalpur 6.The Executive Engineer, Field Machinery Division, Bhagalpur--------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioners :Mr.Tara Nath Jha, Advocate For the State :Mr.Mohan Kumar Singh,AC to SC I ---- 4. 13.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 11.7.2005 and 29.8.2006 issued by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur (respondent No.3) as communicated by Memo No. 162 dated 11.7.2005 and Memo No. 716 dated 29.8.2006 by the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Bhagalpur and further for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground. The short facts of this case are that the father of the petitioner No.1 died while in Government service on 4.7.2004 and the petitioner applied for appointment on 2 compassionate ground. The same has been rejected by the aforesaid impugned orders on the ground that brother of the petitioner is already in Government service relying upon the Circular letter dated 1.9.2004. By the said Circular letter the order dated 27.7.2004 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 6668 of 2003 and another analogous matter was communicated relying on an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar vs. State of Bihar & ors. : 2004(2) PLJR 453. In the said decision it was held that if one of the sons of a deceased employee is already employed in Government service then there is no obligation upon the State Government to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during life time of the deceased employee a family partition had taken place which was evident by memo of partition dated 28.12.2003 (Annexure-5) under which the said employed son had already separated from the other members of the family. He further refers to an award of the permanent Lok Adalat, Nalanda dated 4.1.2006 passed in Title Suit No. 170 of 2005 which also gave its stamp of 3 approval to the partition in the family. In the said circumstances, it is submitted by learned counsel that this case stands on a different footing and the widow of the deceased employee for whose benefit the compassionate appointment is made deserves the compassion by the Government and the petitioner No.1 who is the son of the deceased employee ought to be appointed on compassionate ground so that he can well look after her. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the decision of the earlier Division Bench and the order dated 27.7.2004 of this Court which has been communicated to all the authorities in the State as per the direction issued in the said order has been complied by the authorities and thus no fault can be found in the action of the authorities rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner No.1 is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court on the basis of which the claim 4 for compassionate appointment of the petitioner No.1 has been rejected. The said decisions of this Court also bind this Bench and thus no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/