IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1401 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR PASWAN, son of Shri Ram Swarup Paswan, resident of village Malick Pura, P.S. Goraul District Vaishali … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Joint Secretary to Govt. Department of Home (Police) Patna 2. The Superintendent of Police Vaishali at Hajipur 3. The District Magistrate, cum Chairman of District Compassionate Selection Committee Vaishali at Hajipur 4. Incharge Deputy Collector, District General Establishment Vaishali 5. The Subdivisional Officer, Mahua P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali 6. The Circle Officer, Goraul, P.S. Goraul, District Vaishali … Respondents with CWJC No.9580 of 2008 FAIJUDDIN ANSARI, son of Md. Hanif Ansari, resident of village Kazi Kairy, P.O. Kairy, P.S. Bounsi, District Banka … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Banka 4. The Superintendent of Police, Banka 5. The Circle Officer, Bounsi, Banka 6. The Officer Incharge, P.S. Bounsi, District Banka … Respondents ----------- 5. 27.6.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In both these writ applications the order rejecting the claim for appointment of the petitioners on compassionate ground by the respective District Compassionate Appointment Committee has been assailed on 2 the ground that general policy of appointment of the State Government dated 5.10.1991 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department would not be made applicable in the cases of dependent of Chaukidar/ Dafadar for whom the Home Police Department had made special provision by issuing circular dated 6.11.1991, 19.11.1994 and 20.12.1995 by also extending the category of dependents of nephews/ maternal grand-sons of the deceased Chaukidar. On the last occasion when the matter was heard at length and this Court had found the subsequent Government policy issued by the Home Police Department to be at variance and in fact in teeth of general policy issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, the Home Secretary was directed to appear in person when he had failed to file the counter affidavit explaining the reasons of such variance. Pursuant thereto Mr. Aamir Subhani, Home Secretary, had appeared in person and had sought time to obtain the Government order as with regard to removal of discrepancy in 3 the Government decision. Today a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein the Government Resolution dated 24th June, 2011 has been annexed to show that the category of the family members dependent eligible for the employee on compassionate ground has been reiterated at par with the general Government policy dated 5.10.1991 and that the nephew and maternal grand-son would not be included henceforth for appointment on compassionate ground. The said Government resolution dated 24.6.2011, however, has been given a prospective operation and the earlier appointments made of the category of dependent of nephews/ maternal grand-sons (Nati) has been saved and at the same time the Government has also decided that any case it might have been rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee/ competent authority on the ground of such nephew/ maternal grand-son (Nati) not eligible for appointment under general policy of appointment on compassionate ground of the Government issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms 4 Department dated 5.10.1991 would be reconsidered on the basis of the circular of the Home Department dated 6.11.1991, 19.11.1994 and 20.12.1995. To that extent it would be relevant to quote the operative portion of the Government resolution dated 24.6.2011 which reads as follows: ^^ mDr of.Zr RkF;ksa ds vkyksd esa x`g ¼vkj{kh½ foHkkxh; ifji= la0 9@ys0&207@1991 x`0vk0 10129 fn0- 06-11-1991] 9@ys0&208@1994 x`0vk0&1683 fn0 19-11- 1994 rFkk la0 9@ys0&207@1994 x`0vk011287 fn0 20-12- 1995 dks lE;d fopkjksijkar ljdkj us bl ladYi ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ds izHkko ls] foyksfir djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gS A ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS f dbl ladYi ds fuxZr gksus ds iwoZ rd mi;qZDr ifji=ksa ds izHkkoh jgus dh vof/k esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr lHkh pkSdhnkj@nQknkj fof/kor~ :Ik ls ljdkjh lsok esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr ekus tk,Waxs vkSj ftu ,sls ekeyksa dks bl vk/kkj ij vLohd`r fd;kk x;k gS fd dkfeZd ,oa iz”kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds ifji= ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS mu ekeyksa esa iwoZ esa fuxZr x`g foHkkxh; ifji=ksa ds vk/kkj ij fopkj fd;k tk ldsxk A ** Thus, in view of the above the two impugned resolutions passed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in the case of the petitioners cannot be sustained and both of them are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respective District Compassionate Appointment Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioners for their appointment on compassionate ground. It is, however, made clear that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee now will consider the case of the 5 Surendra/ petitioners and would not reject them only because the petitioners are nephews/ maternal grand-sons (Nati) of the deceased employee. In other words, the other parameters of the compassionate appointment shall still be made applicable before recommending the cases of the petitioners by the respective Committee. Since the petitioners are agitating their grievance for appointment on compassionate ground for more than last 4 to 5 years, this Court would expect that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee will take its appropriate decision in the case of the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order so that in the event a favourable recommendation made by the Committee in favour of the petitioners or either of them, the consequential appointment is made in next two months. With the aforementioned observation and direction, both the writ applications are disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 6