IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10256 of 2006 KAUSHAL KISHOR, S/O LATE NAND KISHOR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-TIKAITPUR, P.O.-NEURA, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT COMPASSINATE COMMITTEE THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, PATNA. 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES (FILERIA CONTROL), SWASTH BHAWAN, MAHENDRU, PATNA-6. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 17.03.2010 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the proceeding of the District Compassionate Committee dated 27.03.2006 communicated to the concerned authorities vide memo no. 1084 dated 31.03.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ application) so far as it adversely affects the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned order shows that the case of the petitioner was considered for appointment on compassionate ground as admittedly his father, as Chowkidar in the service of the respondents, died in harness on 17.12.2004. The notings of the proceedings show that since the father of the petitioner was appointed after 2 1.1.1980 the validity of his appointment was under scrutiny. It is also mentioned in the notings that the appointment of father of the petitioner was not against duly sanctioned post. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. From the counter affidavit it appears that till now no final decision has been taken in respect of validity of appointment of father of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit enclosing a pension payment order issued by the office of the Accountant General to show that his mother has already been sanctioned family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that treating his father to be validly appointed this order has been issued by the Accountant General. Therefore, the respondents are not at liberty to question the validity of appointment of his father. More so when he is already dead. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner for 3 compassionate appointment on merits without going into the validity of the appointment of father of the petitioner now, as he has already died while in service. Therefore, the proceeding of the District Compassionate Committee, as contained in Annexure-5, so far as it affects the petitioner, is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its merits in the next meeting of the District Compassionate Committee. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)