IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14908 of 2008 Pinki Kumari, daughter of late Dashrath Yadav, resident of village, Paharpur Cant, Police Station-Magadha Medical College, Gaya. …Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Magadh Electricity Supply Area, Gaya 3. The Executive Engineer, Magadh Electricity Supply Area, Gaya …Respondents For the petitioner : M/s Ashok Kumasr Singh, Sr.Adv. Prabhat Kumar Singh & Manisha Singh For the respondents (BESB) Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar ----------- 04. 11.08.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner was an applicant for appointment on compassionate ground since her mother while serving the Bihar State Electricity Board, died in harness. By order dated 29.07.2008 contained in Annexure-7, her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that she gave her date of birth as 5.1.1983, whereas from the record it is apparent that her father died on 24.9.1980. It is the said order which is under challenge. Brief facts leading to the present writ application may be first noticed. The mother of petitioner, namely, Sudami Devi was offered appointment on compassionate ground since her husband, namely, Late Dashrath Yadav had died while in service. There is no dispute that Sudami Devi was the wife of 2 Dashrath Yadav. While serving as Messenger (Sandesh Vahika) she died on 4.6.2004. Petitioner claiming herself to be the sole surviving heir of the decreased employee, filed an application seeking her appointment on compassionate ground. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents by office order no.302 dated 4.6.2005 paid the leave encashment dues to the petitioner treating her to be the daughter of the deceased employee. Reliance has also been placed on Annexure-3 which is an order dated 04.02.2006, whereby payment of general provident fund was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner treating her the daughter of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought on record the documents contained in Annexures-4 and 5 which is/are certificate(s) issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Gaya wherein the petitioner has been declared as the daughter of the deceased employee. It is the case of the petitioner that relevant averments made in this regard in the writ petition have not been denied in the counter affidavit and, as such, there is no dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee, namely, Sudami Devi. The contention of the petitioner that the ground taken in the order under challenge that there is difference of 27 moths between the death of the father and birth of the petitioner will have no significance and/or relevance since the respondents do not deny her status as the daughter of the deceased employee. Petitioner has always been treated as the daughter of the deceased employee and a claim was raised in respect of the 3 death of her mother and not the father. Her biological status as daughter of the deceased employee is thus not in dispute. As regards her date of birth appearing in matriculation certificate, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court since reported in AIR 1965 (SC) page 282 (Brij Moham Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha & Ors.) in order to substantiate her claim that difference in actual date of birth and the recorded date of birth may be for obvious reasons which have found favour with the court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the Board referring to the averments made therein, submits that if the date of birth of the petitioner is accepted then it will amount to putting a horse before the cart since her father had died at least 27 months prior to the claimed date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in her matriculation certificate. The respondents, however, have not controverted the assertion supported by documents in the writ petition that the petitioner was treated/accepted as the daughter and, in fact, the sole legal heir of the deceased employee. It is obvious that the petitioner is raising the claim for consideration on compassionate appointment on account of the death of her mother. The respondents are required to consider her case based on her claim. At the cost of repetition, this Court would notice that it is not the case of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not the daughter of 4 the deceased employee of late Sadama Devi. In my view, the rejection of her claim on the ground set out in Annexure-7 would, therefore, not be justified. It is the common knowledge that sometimes an artificial date of birth is recorded in school records for diverse reasons. The Courts in India in several decisions have noted and considered this aspect of the matter. Even if the petitioner is treated as illegitimate daughter of the deceased employee, yet she has certain rights. Accordingly, this Court while quashing the order dated 29.07.2008 contained in Annexure-7, directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law treating her to be the daughter of the deceased employee. Let such consideration be completed within three months from the date of production of copy of the order. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )