IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1174 of 2008 SUMESHWAR SINGH, son of late Raj Nath Singh, resident of village Dudhra, P.O. Dudhra, P.S. Goriakothi, District Siwan … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan 3. The District Compassionate Committee through the District Magistrate, Siwan 4. The Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur, District Siwan … Respondents ----------- 2. 18.4.2011 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Singh in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit would submit that though the respondents had considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground but then the reasons on which such appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground was refused cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as there were unimpeachable material to show that despite three brother of the petitioner being employed in service, since the mother of the 2 petitioner was residing with the petitioner, and two brothers were separate in mess and business, the petitioner ought to have been appointed on compassionate ground. In this respect reliance has been placed on paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition supporting the factum of separation of the brothers from each other. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the true purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is not to provide employment to one of the son of the dependent but in fact to ensure that the family members of the deceased Government servant are provided with means of sustenance. To that extent he has pointed out that when the petitioner does not dispute that his three elder brothers were already in job, two of them in Government service and one of them in private employment, there would be no need for even fourth son, the petitioner, to be given employment for maintaining the family members. He would further submit that the widow of the deceased Government servant was given family pension which was sufficient 3 for her maintenance. In this context reliance has also been placed on the Government circular dated 1st September, 2004 as also a common order of this Court dated 27.7.2004 in C.W.J.C.No. 6668/2003 and C.W.J.C.No. 7044/2003, wherein it had been held that if one of the son of the deceased employee was gainfully employed in Government job there would be no obligation to offer the job to other son on compassionate ground. Having considered aforementioned submissions this Court is of the view that the rejection made by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 7.4.2006 refusing to recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground does not suffer from any error. The whole purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to ensure immediate relief to the dependent family members of the deceased employee. In this case when three sons were already employed, there would not have been any need to offer appointment on compassionate ground for sustenance of the petitioner. As a matter of 4 fact this aspect of the matter stands settled in the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Vishal Kumar vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2004(2) PLJR 453, which was also followed by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 27.7.2004 in C.W.J.C.No. 6668/2003 and C.W.J.C. No. 7044 of 2003. Thus, as the petitioner does not dispute this fact that his three brothers were already in service at the time of death of his father, it can be safely said that the family of the deceased employee, the father of the petitioner, was not in penury so as to be provided appointment on compassionate ground. This aspect of the matter in fact has been also settled by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138. Considering all these aspects this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/