IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1046 of 2008 Indra Bhushan, son of late Raj Narain Bajpayee, Resident of Vill. Belisarai, P.S. Motihari Town, Dist. East Champaran. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Dist. East Champaran at Motihari. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, Dist. East Champaran at Motihari. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 18.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner assails the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 29th June, 2007 as contained in Annexure-10 on the ground that the view taken by the Committee that there was no dependant of the deceased employee is absolutely an error of record, inasmuch as, the petitioner himself was dependent on the deceased employee, the mother of the petitioner. In this case, no counter affidavit has been filed though a period of almost four years have elapsed from the date of filing of this writ application. It is true that the mother of the petitioner, working as an 2 Assistant Teacher in a Primary School, had died on 28.1.2005 leaving behind the petitioner as a sole dependant and, therefore, the authorities were justified in making an enquiry as with regard to the amount paid to the petitioner by way of death-cum-retirement benefit of his mother for evaluating as to whether such amount was sufficient for the survival of the petitioner. However, from the impugned order, it does not appear that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had taken this aspect of the matter into consideration and its non-speaking and terse reason “dksbZ vkfJr ugha jgus ds dkj.k vLohd`r djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k** is definitely a reflection of the mechanical consideration of the case of the petitioner. There can be a situation where the sole dependant himself seeking employment on compassionate ground may be in a state of penury and would require for rehabilitation by way of giving compassionate appointment. That being so, in such a case, the authority by following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar 3 Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1994(4)SCC 138 was necessarily required to go into the aspect of financial condition of the family of the petitioner before taking a decision as to whether the sole dependant of the deceased employee could survive even without compassionate appointment. Consequently, the impugned order, the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee to re- consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above as also strictly in accordance with law. Such an exercise, however, must be completed as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is accordingly disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)