IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8747 of 2007 MD.PARWEZ AHMAD ANSARI son of Rashid Ahmad Ansari, resident of Khalasi Mohalla, Police Office & Police Station- Jhajha, District- Jamui. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Collector-cum-Chairman of the District Establishment Committee, Begusarai. 3. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Begusarai. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Tube-Well Circle, Darbhanga. 5. The Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Begusarai. ….Respondents. --------- For the petitioner :Mr. Abdul Manna Khan, Adv. : Mr. Najimul Hoda, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shanker Kumar Choudhary, A.C. to S.C. 18 ----------- 2. 06.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in the meeting held on 14.12.2005 by giving following reasons;- ^^dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] uydwi izeaMy ds i=kad 771 fn0 7-4-03 }kjk izLrko izkIr ckn esa fu;qfDr inkf/kdkjh v/kh{kd vfHk;ark uydwi vapy njHkaxk ds ek/;e ls muds Kkikad 269 fnukad 8-8-05 }kjk izLrko izkIr vkosnd ds vkonsu ,oa layXu dkxtkrksa dks tkap ftyk vuqdaik lfefr }kjk dh xbZ vkosnd ds e`rd firk dh lsok vLFkk;h FkhA vuqdEik dk ykHk osls ljdkjh lsod ds vkfJr dks nsus dk izko/kku gS] ftudks lsok LFkk;h ,oa oS/k gksA fdUrq bl ekeys esa e`rd dks lsok vLFkk;h gS lkFk gh 2 vkosnd dh tue frfFk 2-3-66 gSA vkosnd fiNM+h tkfr vuqlwph&1 dh Js.kh esa vkrs gS] muds fy, lsok esa fu;qfDr dks vf/kdre mez 37 o"kZA vkosnu izkIr gksus dh frfFk dks vkosnd dh mzez 37 o"kZ ls vf/kd gSA bu nksuksa dkj.kksa ls vkosnd ds vkosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA** Counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the reasons are incorrect and to that extent he would rely on the averments made in paragraph 12 and 13 of the writ application which read as follows:- “12. That it is most respectfully submitted that both the reasoned/assigned by the respondents are quite incorrect are far away from the truth and the materials available on records. As regards to Ist ground that at the time of submitting his application for compassionate appointment before the department authority (Executive Engineer) i.e. 12.8.2002 the petitioner was below 37 years of age, under the maximum age limit. It is most respectfully submitted that the age limit should run from the date of application before the departmental authority and not from the date of receipt of the application by the establishment committee. 13. That as regards to 2nd ground of rejection of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment it is submitted that on 21.6.1966 the petitioner’s father Rashid Ahmad Ansari was appointed as Fuseman in the Mechanical Flood Control Division Samastipur. He served the department at various places without sincerity for about 26 years before the death. His appointment was initially temporary but it was regularized with effect from 21.6.1976 vide 3 letter no. 696 dated 25.3.1986 issued by Executive Engineer Tubewell Division, Begusarai.” Counsel for the State would submit that the decision taken by the Committee is correct inasmuch as the father of the petitioner was not working against a permanent sanctioned post. He is, however, not in a position to make any further submission in view of the fact that he has not filed any counter affidavit despite this writ application remaining pending for a period nearly 4 years. In such a situation, the aforesaid categorical averment made by the petitioner for the time being remaining uncontroverted, has to be accepted. There seems to be actually some sort of confusion in the mind of the authorities examining the claim for compassionate appointment including the Collectors of the district who are the Chairman of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. In a large number of cases including this case it has been found by this Court that such claim for compassionate appointment is being indiscriminately rejected on the ground the deceased employee dying in harness was not working against a permanent sanctioned post. The 4 Government policy, however, does not require that the deceased-employee should have been working against a permanent sanctioned post inasmuch as the policy itself says that the employee should be working against a ( Loh—r ) sanctioned post and not permanent ( LFkkbZ ) sanctioned post. In the present case, the father of the petitioner came to be appointed way back on 8.8.1966 and had continued to remain in service till 20.5.2002 i.e. till the date of his death. It would be thus difficult for this Court to believe that the father of the petitioner in a span of almost 36 years of service was continuing against an unsanctioned post. The concept of permanent sanctioned post being not there in the government policy, one of the reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground is obviously unsustainable. As with regard to the petitioner being overaged on account of completion of 37 years of age, this Court would find that there is a definite statement made by the petitioner that such application was filed on 12.8.2002 and such clear categorical statement of the petitioner has 5 not been controverted by the respondent by filing any counter affidavit. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee also had computed the age of the petitioner on the date of receiving application of the petitioner by the committee without disclosing even that date in the impugned resolution. Thus, it would be very difficult for this Court to sustain even the second reason, in the impugned resolution of the committee specially when the petitioner has also enclosed the document in support of his claim that his application for compassionate appointment was filed on 12.8.2002, on which date his date of birth being 2.3.1966, would make him aged about 36 years. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to sustain the resolution passed by the Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 14.1.2006 as communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 38 dated 14.1.2006 (Annexure-1) and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The respondent, Collector of Begusarai district being the Chairman of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee is directed to get the case of the 6 petitioner considered on merit by the Committee after obtaining any further relevant information as he would find necessary for considering the case of the petitioner in terms of government policy dated 5.10.1991 as updated till the date of death of the father of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the matter has remained pending for quite a long period and the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the dependent family members of the deceased employee, this Court would direct the Collector of Begusarai district to ensure that a final decision through the District Compassionate Appointment Committee is taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)