IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6259 of 2006 CHANDAN SON OF LATE RUP KISHORE SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHABATTA, P.S. JANDAHA, DIST. VAISHALI ….. Petitioner VERSUS 1THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MAG, PATNA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIED CORPORATION LTD. SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. ---------- For the petitioner: Dr. Uma shankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate. Mr.Kamla Kant Tiwary,Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Amrendra Nr. Rai, Advocate. ---------------- 2 11.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent to appoint him on compassionate ground on the death of his father who died on 23.7.2004 and was still in the service of the Corporation, being a temporary employee. Thereafter the petitioner being the eldest son applied for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the stand in the writ petition that the authorities have not acted upon the said application. However, an order no. 4189 dated 3.6.2005 has been brought on record in the counter affidavit by which the petitioner’s application for compassionate ground has been rejected on three grounds. Firstly, it is stated that as per the requirement the number of IV th Grade employees in the Corporation has been found to be 188 only as against which 820 are working as IV th Grade employees and 632 IV th Grade employees are surplus. Secondly, it is stated that the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department by his letter dated 26.06.1996 has also directed not to make any appointment in the Corporation - 2 - including compassionate appointment and thereafter no appointment or compassionate appointment is being made. The third ground is that the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its meeting dated 2.4.2004 has taken a decision that the ban on making appointment on compassionate ground shall continue and no such appointment shall be made in the future also. For the said reasons the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, referring in this regard the order dated 14.1.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12683 of 2003 Ankit Ranjan Vs. The State of Bihar & ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the financial condition of the Corporation has improved continuously and now it has sufficient funds available. He also refers to the various advertisements by which appointments are sought to be made on the post of Assistant Godown Manager, Secretary to Managing Director, Accounts Officer, Assistant Manager and Assistant and thus it is submitted that the said ban ought to be treated as removed. On a consideration of the said advertisements it is evident that they only relate to appointment on contract or on deputation of employees of Boards/ Corporations of the State Government or Central Government and not from the open market and further the said posts are all class III and above category. Moreover learned counsel for the respondents refers to another decision dated 4.4.2005 of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16084 of 2004 Rajeev Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, in which this Court had refused to interfere with the similar order on the ground that no such direction in favour of the similarly situated petitioner of that case could be - 3 - given to the employer to give new appointments even on compassionate ground , since the scheme for giving compassionate appointment remains in suspension. In the facts and circumstances of the case this court also holds that no direction can be given to the respondent Board to make appointment on compassionate ground in view of the stand taken in the order dated 3.6.2005 by which application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. However, if as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, the financial condition of the corporation has improved and in the future it is decided to consider the cases of the various applicants for compassionate appointment then the claim of the petitioner may also be considered in accordance with law. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) Rahman/