IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11897 of 2008 Md.Shahjad Alam S/o Late Md. Shami Ahmad resident of village- Rajkhand, P.O. Shambhupatti, P.S. Muffasil, Dist. Samastipur. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary Energy Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Mithila Regional Electricity Board, Darbhanga. 6. The Electric Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Samastipur. 7. The Assistant Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Samastipur. ---Respondents. -------- 04 23.08.2011 Heard Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the Electricity Board and Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.1 for the State. Petitioner claims himself to be the adopted son of one Abdul Latif, who was an employee on the regular establishment of the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’). It is the case of the petitioner that said Abdul Latif was appointed sometimes in 1962, as skilled labour and continued to serve in the same capacity till 29.04.1995, when he died. Petitioner, who is grand-son of the deceased employee, claimed appointment on compassionate ground based on an unregistered ‘Panchnama’ (Annexure-2), which is said to have been executed by the deceased employee on 06.02.1993 whereby, the petitioner was adopted as his son for diverse purposes 2 including obtaining appointment on compassionate ground in the event the executor ( the deceased employee) dies during his service tenure. It is petitioner’s case that upon his death an application was lodged on his behalf seeking appointment on compassionate ground. He claimed his date of birth as 20.02.1979 based on the aforesaid ‘Panchnama’ as well as the certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board (Annexure- 3/2). The said claim of the petitioner was finally rejected and communicated to him by letter bearing no. 1671 dated 02.07.2008 (Annexure-13). The petitioner assails the aforesaid communication/order. It is submitted that a proceeding was initiated by one Bibi Mahmooda Khatoon, the widow of the deceased employee, and others for obtaining succession certificate with respect to the share in the property left behind by the deceased employee including the post retrial benefits payable to the deceased employee. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said proceeding was disposed of by an order as contained in Annexure-6. Learned counsel submits that ‘Panchnama’, even though unregistered, has been relied upon by a Bench of this Court in 2009(3) PLJR 709 ( Anil Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) for setting aside the order and remanding the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration. It is submitted that in the light of aforesaid facts, this Court may direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 7. Learned counsel referring to the circular/Standing order of 3 the Board (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) submits that adopted son has not been recognized as the dependants of the deceased employee to whom appointment on compassionate ground can be offered. It is his contention that the order passed by the Court in Succession case no. 04 of 1997 (Annexure-6), would not come to the rescue of the petitioner since the same was preferred for specified purpose. In the said order it has not been held that petitioner being the adopted son of the deceased employee would be entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground. It is admitted position that petitioner is the grand- son of the deceased employee and by virtue of ‘Panchnama’ (Annexure-2) he was adopted as son by the deceased employee on 06.02.1993. It is well-settled law that grant of appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the rule governing recruitment consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, it has been held to be permissible in law considering the emergent situation that engulfs the family on account of death of the bread -earner. It is also settled beyond cavil that while considering such claim the Court will consider the relevant circular/ Standing order under which such appointment is sought. Appointment in such matter has to be considered and granted within four corners of the Circular/ resolution/policy decision of the employer. If the claimant(s) fulfils all the eligibility condition(s)/criteria then he/she will be entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Even if the petitioner is treated as adopted son of the deceased employee relying on ‘Panchnama’ (Annexure-2), it appears, on perusal of the relevant circular/standing 4 order/resolution of the respondent Board that an adopted son is not eligible for such consideration. Clause ‘Gha’ of the Standing Order/Circular (Annexure A to the counter affidavit) states as under:- ¼/k½ vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr izkFkfedrk ds vuqlkj fdlh ,d vkfJr dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxh %& 1&e`r lsod dh iRuh@ifr A 2&iq= A 3&vfookfgr iq=h A 4&fo/kok irksgw A fo/kok irksgw dh fu;qfDr ij rHkh fopkj fd;k tk,xk tc e`rd deZpkjh ds dksbZ vgZrk izkIr iq=@vfookfgr iq=h miyC/k u gksA nÙkd iq=@iq=h dh x.kuk e`r dkexkjh ds vkfJr dh Js.kh esa ugha dh tk;sxh vkSj vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij budh fu;qfDr ugha dh tk,xh A It is, thus, seen that by specific provision it has been declared thereunder that adopted son or the daughter would not be entitled for such consideration. Petitioner, therefore, does not fall within the category of dependants who can be considered and offered appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2009(3) PLJR 709 in order to substantiate his submission that even the unregistered ‘Panchnama’ in such matter can be relied upon while granting relief to the petitioner. That issue does not fall for consideration in the present case since adopted son/daughter of the deceased employee has not been made eligible for such consideration under the relevant Standing order/circular/resolution of the respondent Board. For the reasons noted above, this Court does not find any merit in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)