IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4368 of 2005 KHURSHIDA PERVEEN, wife of Late Md. Neyaz Ahmad, resident of Mohalla- Naogharwa, P.O.- Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Patna. At present residing at Mohalla- Paithan Toli, Isapur, P.O. and P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate- cum- Collector, Jehanabad. 3. The District Education Officer, Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad. 4. The Head Master, Devnandan High School, Bandhuganj, P.O. Bandhuganj, District- Jehanabad. 5. Mr. Firoz Ahmad, son of late Md. Neyaz Ahmad, resident of Mohalla- Naugharwa, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 8. 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to respondents to appoint her on compassionate without any delay. Mr. Amanullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was an Urdu teacher in Govt. High School who died in harness on 23.10.2003 whereafter the claim for appointment of the petitioner somehow opposed by the son and daughter of the predeceased wife of her husband, namely, Firoz Ahmad and Miss. Shaheen Neyaz who had in fact filed Title 2 Suit No. 19 of 2004. Mr. Amanullah further submits that when the said suit was not being decided and the petitioner was facing starvation, she had filed this writ application on 15.4.2005. He also informs this Court that during the pendency of this writ application the said Title Suit No. 19 of 2004 having been sent to Permanent Lok Adalat was sought to be compromised whereby and whereunder while the son from the first wife, Firoz Ahmad has been given the right to claim appointment on compassionate ground where as the claim of post retirement benefit and the family property have been apportioned under such order of Lok Adalat. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter was also noticed by this Court in the order dated 18.3.2008 whereby counsel for respondent no. 5 was directed to bring on record the compromise petition. From the record it transpires that said compromise petition had not been filed till date by respondent no. 5. Unfortunately, counsel for respondent no. 5 has also not explained the disobedience on the part of respondent no. 5 to comply the order of this Court 3 dated 18.3.2008. Counsel for the petitioner has however produced a copy of the compromise petition as also award given by the Permanent Lok Adalat which is on record of this case. This Court, however, would now find that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground cannot be made in view of the said compromise effected between the parties. Therefore, this Court would only direct the State Government and its Officials to give effect to the terms and conditions of compromise effected between the parties inasmuch as the Government Pleader was also signatory to the said compromise petition. This Court, accordingly, directs the respondents to ensure that whatever retirement benefit of the deceased employee is payable to the petitioner in terms of the aforementioned compromise, must be paid to her within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that if any of the parties would cause impediment in the working of any 4 of the terms and compromise, he/she would be subjected to appropriate proceeding in terms of the provision made in Legal Services Authority Act. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)