IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6094 of 2010 Sanjay Kumar, S/o- Late Janardhan Prasad Singh, R/o- Village Pokharpur, P.S.- Giriyak, District- Nalanda. Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Home Ministry, New Delhi 2. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, 13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. The Sr. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, (Ministry of Home Affairs), Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela-796001, Orissa. 4. The Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, Orissa. 5. The Asst. Inspector General/Welfare, C.I.S.F., 13, CGO’s Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03. 6. The Inspector General, C.I.S.F. Eastern Sector Headquarters, Office Complex, New Patliputra Colony, Boring Road, Patna-13 (Bihar). 7. The Asst. Inspector General, CISF Eastern Sector Headquarters, Patna. 8. The Asst. Commandant, CISF Eastern Sector Headquarters, Patna. ----------- 4 07.07.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is son of a deceased employee. He made application for his appointment on compassionate ground. The said matter remained pending which propelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present proceeding. This Court by order dated 13.4.2010, after noticing the facts of the case, disposed of the application, operative portion whereof reads as under: “3. In the light of the aforesaid observation and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on Group-D post and if the same is not available then by creating such post as was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain (Supra) as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the order.” Respondents filed appeal thereagainst vide L.P.A. 2 No. 1260 of 2010. The Appellate Court by a proceeding dated 27.10.2010 disposed of the appeal and the matter was remitted back to the original Court of writ jurisdiction affording an opportunity to the appellants (respondents herein) to file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has been filed. It appears that respondents have also taken steps in the matter inasmuch as the writ petitioner was permitted to take required tests on two occasions. The stand taken therein is that the post of Group-D has since been merged by a government resolution and for a post to which such appointment can be made, a Rule has been framed wherein the petitioner has to qualify certain tests. Reliance in this regard has been placed on documents placed at Annexures-A/1 and A/2. It is also the stand of the respondents that a list as per the date of death of the employee is maintained in the office and the applicants are granted opportunity to clear the requirements as contemplated in different circulars of the Central Industrial Security Force (for short “the C.I.S.F. “). In substance, the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground pursuant to date of death of the father has not been denied by the respondents. In fact, as noticed above, they themselves state that opportunities have been granted to the petitioner to clear the test as per the circulars of the C.I.S.F. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that further delay in the matter would defeat the purpose for which such appointments are to be made. It is the stand of the petitioner that his case for appointment on compassionate ground on any appropriate post to which he is found entitled to in terms of the relevant circulars of the C.I.S.F be considered. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It cannot be denied that such appointments are made to mitigate the hardship faced by the family of the employee on account of sudden death while in service. Delay in such matter would defeat the purpose. It further appears that the respondents have already permitted the petitioner at least on two occasions to appear and clear the required tests. The petitioner utilized those two opportunities. He, however, could not clear the tests. It is the positive stand of the respondents that petitioner would be given one more opportunity in terms of relevant circulars of C.I.S.F. and in case the petitioner clears the test, the appointment shall be offered. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of the application by the following order: Let the respondents provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to clear the required test and if the petitioner clears the same, the appointment on any appropriate post to 4 which is found entitled to shall be offered to him as quickly as possible. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)