IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11168 of 2008 1. GAYATRI DEVI, wife of late Shardanand Singh of village Lav, P.O. + P.S. Tekari, District Gaya 2. Satish Kumar, son of late Shardanand Singh of village Lav, P.O. + P.S. Tekari, District Gaya … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The D.I.G. of Police, Champaran Range, Bettiah 4. The D.M.W. Champaran cum Chairman Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bettiah, West Champaran 5. The S.P. West Champaran (Bettiah) … Respondents ----------- 2. 4.5.2011 No one appears for the petitioners. Counsel for the State is present and would like to support the stand of the respondents taken in their counter affidavit that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as there would be no justification for such appointment on compassionate ground after period of seven years from the date on which their bread earner, the deceased employee, became traceless and eventually was deemed to be dead in terms of section 108 of the Evidence Act. There are two facets to the whole 2 issue, namely, the death of the deceased employee being a presumptive death in terms of section 108 of the Evidence Act will be deemed to be only after expiry of seven years from the date of missing of the deceased employee. In that event if a plea is taken by the respondents that such dependents of the deceased employee will not be eligible for appointment because a period of seven years have already elapsed, that would virtually mean carving out a class in the Government circular dated 5.10.1991 which does not in fact put an embargo on appointment of a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness by way of presumptive death. The death in harness being only touch-stone in the Government circular dated 5.10.1991 such stand of the respondents of leaving one particular class of death and making them ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be approved by this Court. As a matter of fact this aspect of the matter has already been considered by this Court in a number of cases and consequently the State Government has 3 already issued its order for considering such cases of the dependent of Government servant whose death has to be presumed in terms of section 108 of the Evidence Act. The relevant part of the Government circular reads as follows: “^3- vr% ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k esa fn;s x;s lq>koks rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj ds mDr dk;kZy; Kkiu esa fufgr izko/kku ds vkyksd esa] jkT; ljdkj }kjk lE;d:is.k fopkjksijkar fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy;s x;s gS& ¼1½ ;fn dksbZ ljdkjh lsod vfookfgr gks vkSj mlds ekrk firk ,oa HkkbZ&cgu mlh ij vkfJr gksa rFkk lsokdky esa ,sls ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q gks tk; rks oSlh ifjfLFkfr esa mldh fo/kok eka] NksVk HkkbZ ,oa vfookfgr NksVh cgu dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq vkfJr ekuk tk,xkA ¼2½ ykirk ljdkjh lsodksa ds ekeys esa Hkh] fuEukafdr 'krksZa ds v/khu] vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj ds ykHk dh vuqekU;rk gksxh%& ¼d½ ljdkjh lsod ds ykirk gksus dh frfFk ls nks o"kksZa ds chr tkus ds ckn vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq vuqjks/k ij fopkj gks ldrk gS] c'krsZ fd%& ¼i½ iqfyl Fkkuk es bl laca/k esa ,d izkFkfedh ntZ fd;k x;k gks ¼ii½ ykirk O;fDr dk irk py ikuk dfBu gks] vkSj ¼iii½ l{ke izkf/kdkj ;g eglwl djsa fd ekeyk lR; gSA ¼[k½ ;g ykHk ,sls ljdkjh lsodksa ds ekeys esa vuqekU; ugha gksxk%& ¼i½ ftls ykirk gksus dh frfFk ls nks o"kksZ ds vanj lsokfuo`r gksuk gS ;k ¼ii½ ftl ij /kks[kk/kM+h djus dk lansg gks] ;k fdlh vkradoknh laxBu esa 'kkfey gksus dk lansg gks] ;k fons'k pys tkus dk lansg gksA ¼x½ vU; ds ekeyksa dh rjg ykirk ljdkjh lsods ds ekeys esa Hkh vuqdEik fu;qfDr vf/kdkj dk ekeyk ugha gksxh vkSj ;g fjfDr;ksa dh miyC/krk lfgr] ,slh fu;qfDr ds fy, fu/kkZfjr lHkh 'krksZa ds iwjk gkasus ij gh gks ldsxhA ¼?k½ ,sls vuqjks/k ij fopkj djrs le; iqfyl vuqla/kku ds ifj.kkeksa dks Hkh /;ku esa j[kk tk;sxkA ¼3½ ykirk ljdkjh lsod ds vkfJr dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr dj fy;s tkus ds ckn ykirk ljdkjh 4 lsod ds iqu% izdV gks tkus ij vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr muds vkfJr dh lsok Lor% lekIr le>h tk;sxhA ijUrq ,sls vkfJr ls] muds }kjk dRrZO; dh vof/k ds fy, Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dh olwyh ugha dh tk;sxhA ykirk ljdkjh lsod ds izdV gksus ,oa ;ksxnku nsus ij l{ke izkf/kdkj }kjk mudk ;ksxnku Lohdkj djrs gq, mUgsa fuyafcr dj muds fo:n~/k fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e 76 ds vkyksd esa vuf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr ds fy, fu;ekuqlj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pykdj leqfpr dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA 4- bl foHkkx ds Kkikad&13293 fnukad 05-10-91 dh dafMdk&¼1½ ¼x½ ,oa ¼?k½ mi;qZDr gn rd la'kksf/kr le>h tk;sxh] vkSj Kkikad 281 fnukad 01-02-2006 ,oa i=kad 4265 fnukad 04-12-07 rn~uqlkj vodzfer le>s tk;saxsA** It is really unfortunate that the deponent to the counter affidavit being a senior functionary, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has filed an affidavit despite there being a contrary Government decision by placing reliance on the earlier Government decision. In any event this Court has found that the reasons given in Annexure 7, as communicated by the Deputy Collector, Establishment of West Champaran District in his letter No. 946 dated 6.12.2006 and the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee is contrary to the Government circular. Consequently this Court would quash Annexure „C‟ to the counter affidavit and direct the 5 District Compassionate Appointment Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the guidelines issued by the State Government as quoted above. Such decision must be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The other grievance of the petitioners relating to payment from Propkari fund has been claimed to be redressed as has been clearly stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows: “That with regard to the statement made in para 17 of the instant petition, it is hereby submitted respectfully that vide Memo No. 1309/G.S. dated 13.5.2008, the answering respondent informed the petitioner through registered post to furnish the details in requisite from for the payment of “Propkari fund”. Further a fax letter No. 4419/G.S. dated 25.11.2008 has also been sent to S.P., Gaya to communicate the petitioner to furnish the details in requisite form for the payment of “Propkari fund.” 6 In that view of the matter, this writ application so far it relates to consideration of case of petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground is allowed to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/