IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.993 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR PANDEY SON OF LATE NANDU PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- ANISABAD (IN FRONT OF ANISABAD POST OFFICE), POLICE STATION- GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA ………..PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BISHEWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PATNA 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING (YANTRICK) PRAMANDAL, VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA – 14 ………………..RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr.Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.S.K.Sharma, G.A.V Mr.S.S.Mishra, J.C to G.A.V. -------- 2. 19.12.2008 Reg : I.A.No.7510 of 2008 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. With the consent of the party, we have taken the appeal for admission. Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 20th of May, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.11006 of 2005 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner-appellant’s father was working as a 2 pump operator in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Patna, who died while in service on 9.1.2005. Writ petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground so also his brother. The widow of the government servant did not agree to the appointment of the writ petitioner but consented to the appointment of his another son. Mr.Deepak Kumar Sinha, appears on behalf of the appellant. Respondents are represented by Government Advocate No.V. In view of the fact that the widow of the government servant has not consented for appointment of the writ petitioner, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly held that he has no right to be appointed on compassionate ground. His grievance is that his younger brother is not entitled to be appointed on the ground of under-age is not fit to be examined as the writ petitioner has been found to be not entitled for appointment. We are of the opinion that this appeal is absolutely misconceived and it is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Narendra/