IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9763 of 2010 1. ABBAS ANSARI, S/O LATE ISA ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE PAKRI, P.O. NATHUA JALALPUR, P.S. KUCHAIKOTE,DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 2. RAJATUL NISHA, W/O LATE ISA ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE PAKRI, P.O. NATHUA JALALPUR, P.S. KUCHAIKOTE,DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOPALGANJ. 5. THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, GOPALGANJ. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KUCHAIKOTE, GOPALGANJ. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KUCHAIKOTE, GOPALGANJ. 8. SRI BASRUDDIN ANSARI, S/O LATE ISA ANSARI, R/O VILLAGE PAKRI, P.O. NATHUA JALALPUR, P.S. KUCHAIKOTE,DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. ----------- 2 01.03.2011 Petitioner no.1 is the second son of the deceased employee from the first wife and petitioner no.2 is the second wife. They have filed this writ application for quashing of appointment of respondent no.8 on compassionate grounds on the ground that though respondent no.8 is the elder brother of petitioner no.1, but he is not looking after the family. The second wife and her children are being looked after by petitioner no.1. The whole purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship being 2 faced by the family on account of sudden death of Government employee in harness. It is not a provision to give right of appointment to any heir of deceased Government employee dying in harness in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If by compassionate appointment the whole purpose of such policy is defeated then the action of the respondents may be opened to challenge under Article 14 and 16. However, the question, as to whose appointment is going to mitigate the hardship of the family, the authorities have to consider and satisfy themselves before allowing application for compassionate appointment. In the circumstances, this Court is neither considers it appropriate to quash the appointment of respondent no.8 nor to issue any directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner no.1 for compassionate appointment. However, he is granted liberty to represent the respondents and claim that it is he who is looking after the entire family of the deceased employee 3 and respondent no.8. The matter should be considered from the point of view of mitigating the hardship of the family and thereafter decision should be taken in the matter within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner no.1 files a representation for the purpose, if he so does. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)