IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.369 of 2010 1. RAMDHYAN YADAV S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA YADAV R/O VILL. UDHAM BIGHA, P.O.- CHAIEN, P.S.- SALAIYA, DISTT.- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL C.I.S.F. (HOME MINISTRY, NEW DELHI) 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (HOME MINISTRY) EAST ZONE, HEAD OFFICE-PATLIPUTRA, PATNA 4. ASSISTANT COMMANDANT C.I.S.F. EAST ZONE HEAD OFFICE, PATLIPUTRA, PATNA 5. DEPUTY COMMANDANT C.I.S.F. (HOME MINISTRY) UNIT R.H.P.P. PIPARI, DISTT.- SON BHADRA (U.P.) ----------- For the petitioner :M/s D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Birendra Kumar Singh No.1, Advocate For the Union of India :Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate -------- 04/ 09.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is the son of Late Ramchandra Yadav, who died while serving as Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the Force). After the death of his father, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. His case was not considered for such appointment, vide order dated 9.8.2009, Annexure-1 as the post of followers stood abolished in the Force. Under letter dated 27.8.2008, Annexure-4, mother of the petitioner was informed that as the petitioner is 165 Cm. in height, he is not fit for appointment as constable, however, is at liberty to apply for the post of Cook, Waterman, Washerman, Barber, Tailor, Sweeper etc. According to the petitioner, his request for such appointment has not been considered. 2 3. Counsel for the Union of India, on the basis of the written instruction obtained from the authorities, states that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of his request for appointment submitted pursuant to the instructions contained in letter dated 27.8.2008, Annexure-4 but he was found overage for such appointment in the light of the provisions contained in sub-clause E (iii) of paragraph 3 of the instruction dated 14.6.2005 issued in regard to the appointment on compassionate ground and under letter dated 19.12.2008, he has been informed that he is overage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that petitioner has not received any letter dated 19.12.2008 and he is not aware as to whether his case was ever considered for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of post of Cook, Waterman, Washerman, Barber, Tailor, Water Carrier, Sweeper etc. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India, I direct the petitioner to appear before the I.G., Eastern Sector, Patna, who shall serve the petitioner with the copy of letter dated 19.12.2008, in case petitioner disputes the contents of the letter, then he is at liberty to file representation against the contents of the letter dated 19.12.2008, which should be considered and disposed of by the competent authority in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. In the event, the authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for 3 appointment on compassionate ground under letter dated 19.12.2008, the authorities would consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of post of Cook, Waterman, Washerman, Barber, Tailor, Water Carrier, Sweeper etc. in accordance with law. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)