IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16295 of 2007 Kari Singh, son of late Lakhan Singh, resident of Village Harrakh, Ward No.7, P.S. Nager, District Begusarai. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Higher Education, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Vice Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Kamashwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. The Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Kamashwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Finance Officer, L.N. Mithila University, Kamashwar Nagar, Darbhanga. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 15.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Law Officer of the University is also present in the court room. In this case, there is a real mess created by the authorities of the University, inasmuch as, its competent authority, has already found the case of the petitioner fit for appointment on compassionate ground and an order to this effect was also issued in the year 2007 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application or Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The petitioner, however, in the aforesaid order was put to a condition that he should produce the appointment letter of his father, the deceased employee as also 2 must disclose the total emoluments paid to his father in his service period. Obviously, the petitioner, the dependent could not have found these very old documents and/or information and, therefore, the matter had remained pending despite the petitioner repeatedly knocking the door of the authorities and also filing this writ application. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, the same stand has been reiterated that since the petitioner has not produced the desired documents and information his appointment has not been made. This Court had put a specific question both to the counsel for the University as also the Law Officer of the University present in the Court room as to whether the University doubts the appointment and continuance of the father of the petitioner in the University service. Their answer was in negative. The Court again had put a question to them as to whether it is the case of the University that the father of 3 the petitioner was working against an unsanctioned post. Again Mr. Parthasarthi learned Counsel for the University has very fairly submitted that this at least does not seem to be the case of the University in its counter affidavit. Once this aspect becomes clear that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the University and was working against a sanctioned post, its decision taken for appointment on compassionate ground way back in the year 2007 had to be carried out. The petitioner, in fact, has been made to suffer for a period of four years in the matter of compassionate appointment whereas the very purpose of such appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee. The father of the petitioner died on 23.5.2004 and it took three years for the University in only taking a decision for appointing petitioner on compassionate ground and thereafter four years has elapsed without implementation of such decision. It is really a pitiable and shocking state of affairs prevailing in the 4 L.N. Mithila University and the sooner it is redressed by the competent authority whether by the Chancellor or the Vice Chancellor, better it would be in academic and administrative interest of the University. Be that as it may, today learned counsel for the University, having taken instruction from the Law Officer present in the Court room, would submit that the formal appointment letter of the petitioner would be issued within a period of one week from today and if the petitioner would appear on next Friday i.e. on 22.4.2011 before the Registrar of the University, he shall immediately handover his order of appointment. As this is a case of compassionate appointment, this Court would leave the matter over there. In a case of regular appointment being denied for a flimsy ground like the present one, probably this Court could have directed for giving seniority from the date of such decision but, then, as it is the case of compassionate appointment, this Court would only direct the respondents to compensate the loss sustained by the 5 petitioner for their inaction for a period of four years by paying a cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/- which also will be paid to the petitioner, the day he would appear for receiving his appointment letter i.e. on 22.4.2011. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)