IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16358 of 2007 Ritesh Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Kameshwar Prasad Mishra, Resident of Village Bagahi, P.O. Narsinghpur, via-Dholi, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Special Secretary-cum-Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Project and Design Circle, Water Resources Department, Ratwara, Muzaffarpur. 5. Executive Engineer, Project and Design Division No.2, Ratwara, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 13.4.2011 Heard Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, while assailing an order of rejection of his claim of compassionate appointment dated 20.10.2006, has an impression that the deceased grand-mother, a Government employee, had some sort of right of getting one person appointed in her place, if she would die in harness. It is on this impression that the learned senior counsel has proceeded to place reliance on paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit admitting that the petitioner was nominated and eventually paid the entire G.P.F. amount of his grandmother and, 2 accordingly, he would be the most fit person to be also appointed on compassionate ground as being the sole heir nominated by the grandmother. Learned senior counsel in this regard has also invited the doctrine of estoppel, inasmuch as, it is contended that the State will be bound now to recognize the petitioner as a sole heir for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and, by legal fiction, the grandson would become the heir of the deceased grandmother. All these impressions of the petitioner followed by the submission of the learned senior counsel would require consideration in the backdrop of the Government policy of compassionate appointment. Let it be noted that the said Government policy is not based on the line of succession of the Government employee and, in fact, all types of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased employee have not been given the facility or the benefit of being appointed on compassionate ground. Under the policy of compassionate appointment as issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms 3 Department in its circular dated 5.10.1991, only four categories of the dependant relatives of the deceased Government servant have been provided the right of consideration for being appointed on compassionate ground, namely, the wife (widow of the deceased employee), son, the unmarried daughter and the widow of the pre-deceased son. Obviously, they alone are not the class-1 heir as per the Hindu law but, then, the Government policy did not go by the line of succession and in fact had taken into account the responsibility and liability left behind the deceased Government servant, who is supposed to bear the burden of his wife, unsettled son, his unmarried daughter, her unsupported widow of the pre-deceased son. Such Government policy, therefore, in no way can be said to be discriminatory. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not challenged the Government policy and, therefore, once he would not fall in the aforesaid category of the four dependants, he cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground only by virtue of his being grandson 4 and nominee of the deceased Government servant, his grandmother. In this regard, this Court would also not find any merit in that part of the submission that the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner for being paid the amount of G.P.F. There is no restriction under the G.P.F. rules, which requires a person to nominate only son or daughter and in fact it is the sweet will of the subscriber of the amount to nominate any person to whom he would like his amount of G.P.F. to be paid. On the basis of this nomination, it cannot be said that the Government policy of appointment on compassionate ground would also stand changed. The G.P.F. rules and the policy of the compassionate appointment travels in two different directions and that cannot be made synonym to each other. The last part of the submissions invoking the doctrine of estoppel in terms of Indian Evidence Act can also not be accepted in absence of any representation made by the Government. Merely because the Government had 5 accepted the nomination and had allowed the petitioner to draw the benefit of provident fund would not mean that the Government had also accepted the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. The provident fund rule does not say that the moment a person is allowed to draw the amount by way of nominee, he would also be entitled for claiming the right of spouse, son, unmarried daughter or widow of the pre- deceased son, which are the only four categories recognized by the Government policy for appointment on compassionate ground. There being no misrepresentation by the Government to this effect and, in fact, no prejudice suffered by the petitioner on this score, the claim of the petitioner for his being appointed on compassionate ground even on the basis of doctrine of estoppel has to be rejected. It is in this background that this Court has to examine the reasons given in the impugned order dated 20.10.2006, which records that the petitioner, being the grand- son, is not eligible for compassionate ground 6 specially when the deceased employee had also a son. The policy of the Government, being confined to the four categories, as mentioned above, and the petitioner, being a grandson, not covered by the policy, the reason of rejection in the impugned order is absolutely in keeping with the policy and the superfluous sentence that her case cannot be considered in view of the deceased having son has to be only understood in the context of the ineligibility of the petitioner of being grandson and thus not covered by the policy. Judged in this background, this Court also would not find any error in the impugned order. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)