IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17728 of 2011 Rajdeo Mahto son of Late Phuleshwar Mahto resident of village Bhiroja, P.O. and P.S. Ekangar Sarai, Nalanda …Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhut Bhawan, Patna Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhut Bhawan, Patna Bihar. 3. The Deputy Director, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhut Bhawan, Patna Bihar. 4. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, PESU, Patna Bihar. 5. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Board, PESU, Patna Bihar.] 6. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Ekangar Sarai, Nalanda, Bihar …Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh For the Respondent BSEB :Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma ----------- 02. 12.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board (for short the „Board‟). Petitioner claiming himself to be the adopted son of the employee of the Board prays for a direction upon the Respondent-Board to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. One Phuleshwar Mahto was serving the Board as unskilled khalasi in Electric Supply Divisional Ekangar Sarai, Nalanda. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the adopted son of aforesaid Phuleshwar Mahto who died in harness on 13.01.1989. Petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground which was not considered which 2 propelled him to file a writ case being CWJC No.11726 of 2010. The said application was considered and disposed of by order dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure-2). Operative portion whereof reads as under: “Having heard counsel for the parties, petitioner is directed to apply for compassionate appointment in the Board in proper format and his application be considered by the competent authority of the Board in accordance with law within a reasonable time, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the application along with a clay of this order. In the event, petitioner is not granted compassionate appointment, the authority shall pass a reasoned order indicating reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for such appointment. This application is accordingly disposed of.” In the light of the said order, the matter was considered and the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate appointment was rejected by order dated 28.06.2011 which was duly communicated to the petitioner by letter bearing no. 981 dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-5). Said order reads as under:- “….The document available on record does not appear to be a legal document of adoption as per rule. Be it, as it may even the prescribed period for submission of application for appointment on Compassionate ground is condoned in view of directive of Hon‟ble High Court, Patna it does not make a suitable case for appointment on Compassionate ground since writ petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of Late Phuleshwar Mahoto and there is no provision for appointment on Compassionate ground of adopted son in BSEB and do not fulfil the condition of Compassionate appointment hence his matter was not considered. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 3 In compliance to order dated 26.07.2010 the matter of writ petitioner Sri Rajdeo Mahto was examined and it was found that Late Phuleshwar Mahto, Ex-Unskilled Khalasi, ESD, Ekangarsari expired on 13.01.1989, it is on record that Late Phuleshwar Mahto expired issueless however Sri Rajdeo Mahto submitted application for appointment on Compassionate ground being as adopted son of Late Phuleshwar Mahto. The matter of Sri Mahto remained unconsidered mainly on following two grounds:- 1. The application was not submitted in prescribed performa within prescribed time. 1. There is no provision for appointment on compassionate appointment of adopted son in the Board. In view of the above facts and position, I do not find any merit in the claim of petitioner for appointment on Compassionate ground. Therefore, the application dated 01.02.2011 submitted by writ petitioner for appointment on Compassionate ground is accordingly rejected…” Petitioner has not brought on record the relevant circular which entitles him to be considered for grant of appointment on compassionate ground being the adopted son of the deceased employee of the Board. This Court does not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )