IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8725 of 2004 ANITA KUMARI, daughter of late Baikunth Nath Singh, residence of village Maiyitar, P.O. Dumrhar, P.S. Guthani, District Siwan … Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, 10A Midilton Road, Kolkata-71 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Arunachal Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 3. The Assistant Manager (Personnel), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Arunachal Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 4. Deputy Manager (Personnel), for Zonal Manager (East), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (East), 10 Middileton Road, Kolkata-7 … Respondents ----------- 14. 11.4.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raises plea of discrimination to highlight that the petitioner was not appointed on compassionate ground, whereas one Lakha Chakarvorty was given a favourable treatment. This aspect of the matter has been clarified by the respondents in their counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that there was no question of any discrimination, inasmuch as the initial application filed by Lakha Chakarvorty was dated 10.12.1997, whereas admittedly the application filed by the petitioner was 2 dated 17.2.1998. Mr. Thakur did not controvert this position but then he went back to the story of the petitioner filing an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1995. It was his submissions that in the year 1995 such application of the petitioner was not considered because she was a minor. Once this position becomes clear that the earlier application allegedly filed by the petitioner in the year 1995 was not a valid application, inasmuch as the petitioner was not major and thus, ineligible for such appointment on compassionate ground, it would become clear that the Corporation has not appointed a single person applying after the petitioner and to that extent there would be no denial that the Corporation till date has not appointed any person after the appointment of Lakha Chakarvorty. Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned counsel for the Corporation, in fact has gone to submit that before 1998 some 116 persons were appointed in excess against 3 Surendra/ Class IV post in the quota of 5% ear-marked for compassionate appointment and the Corporation till date has not been able to adjust such excess appointment. Once this aspect would become clear that the lack of vacancy for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground is the only factor, there would be no difficulty in rejecting the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as such policy of compassionate appointment basically depends on paying capacity of the employer. By making compassionate appointment the employer cannot be put to further financial crunch. There being a transparent policy of making appointment on compassionate ground limited to 5% and no one having been appointed after filing of the valid application of the petitioner on 17.2.1998 this Court would find it difficult to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 4