IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.50 of 2006 AKHILESH KUMAR, son of Late Panchu Ram, Mother Late Sita Devi, Resident of Mohalla-Chandmari Road, Near Shiv Temple, Police Station Kankarbagh, Post Office- Lohia Nagar, District-Patna. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Medical Officer- Viklang Bhawan, Hospital, Kankarbagh, Patna 4. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Patna. ………………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Uday Chandra Prasad, Advocate For the State:- Mrs. Nividita Nirvikar, GP 16 ------------ 3. 15.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in memo No. 2205 dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure-5) issued by Respondent no.4, the District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Patna by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The case of the petitioner is that his mother died on 7.11.2003 while she was still in service and accordingly he applied for appointment on compassionate ground. It is admitted that the petitioner’s father was posted as constable in Bihar Excise Department and he had also died on 8.3.1998 while still in service. The petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground duly supported by affidavits by three other brothers that they have no objection to his such appointment but the same has been rejected on the ground that both his parents were in government service. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and others: 2005 (4) PLJR 565 in which it has been stated that compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a son of a deceased government employee if prior to the date of death of his parent, against which he seeks compassionate appointment, the other parent had already died. The stand of learned counsel for the State is that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the said decision since the purpose of compassionate appointment is only to give the benefit to a family in dire financial state after the death of the sole bread winner. It is pointed out that on the death of the father of the petitioner, one of the brothers of the petitioner, namely, Jitendra Kumar had already been granted compassionate appointment and thus the decision in the case of Dharmendra Kumar (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present matter as in that case no member of the family of the deceased had been granted compassionate appointment and in such circumstances, this Court had directed that the petitioner of that case should be given compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the facts of the present case are entirely different and as a matter of fact, the petitioner is also guilty of suppressing the said fact that one of his brothers had been granted compassionate appointment on the death of his father. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned - 3 - counsel for the State that the decision in Dharmendra Kumar’s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. If one member of the family has already been granted benefit of compassionate appointment, no such benefit can again be granted to another member simply because both the parents were in government service. It must at all times be remembered that the principle of compassionate appointment though basically contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution of India, has been permitted by the Courts only to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased government employee in the financial distress occasioned by such death. If the benefit of compassionate appointment has already been granted to one of the members of the family on the death of a parent, then the said benefit cannot again be extended to another member merely because both the parents were in government service. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of succession to an office and it cannot be granted on the said ground. There is thus no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)