IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11776 of 2007 Bijay Kumar, son of Panchu Jamadar, Resident of Village Bagula, P.O. Dangra, Police Station Mohanpur, District Gaya. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. 4. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Barachatti, Gaya. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 8.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application, seeking appointment on compassionate ground, is sought to be opposed by the respondents by raising a plea in the counter affidavit that even after the death of the mother of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner, being a Government servant, was alive and, as such, the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the restrictions imposed in the circular of the State Government dated 5.10.1991. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is a complete misunderstanding in the mind of the authorities as with regard to the interpretation of the circular dated 5.10.1991. It is true that if either of the 2 spouses, being Government servant alive and continuing in service on the date of cause of action for seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the dependant family member arose, he or she will not get compassionate appointment, inasmuch as, the relevant part of the circular in question dated 5.10.1991 clearly lays down that; ^^¼M+½ ;fn ifr&iRuh nksuks ljdkjh lsok esa gksa vkSj fdlh ,d dh e`R;w gks tk; rks oSlh fLFkfr esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk muds ifjokj ds fdlh vkfJr dks ugha feysxkA** From reading of the aforesaid portion of the Government circular, it would be clear that the continuation of either of the spouse in Government service is a condition precedent for denial of compassionate appointment to the dependant of the deceased employee. Such, however, would not be the position where either of the spouses has already retired from service and the other spouse dies in harness after retirement of his or her spouse. In the present case, the father of the petitioner had retired on 31.1.2000 and the mother of the petitioner had died on 3 15.5.2000. In such a situation the applicability of the Government circular, quoted above, would not stand in the way of the petitioner as the father of the petitioner was not in service on the date of death of the mother of the petitioner. It is this aspect of the matter which has been considered and decided by the Division Bench in the case of Jyoti Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2005(4)PLJR 507. Thus, in the light of the facts discussed above and the law also settled by the Division Bench in the case of Jyoti Kumari (supra) this Court will have no hesitation in holding that non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment till date is wholly illegal and the alleged reason of the father of the petitioner being alive as a retired government servant for denial of compassionate appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved by this Court. This Court, accordingly, would direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate 4 ground and take a final decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In making such a consideration, the competent authority/District Compassionate Appointment Committee would be free to take his its own decision in terms of the Government policy of compassionate appointment and in the light of the facts of the case of the petitioner but it would not reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that he would not qualify for compassionate appointment on account of his father being a retired Government servant on the date of death of his mother or even thereafter. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)