IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8097 of 2008 MD.TANVEER, S/O LATE MAHMOOD ALI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-CHHOTI KHANJARPUR, R.B. SURYA PRASAD ROAD, P.S. BARARI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SOUTH), BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. 4.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHVESHWARIYA BHAVAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 5.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDING CIRCLE, BHAGALPUR. 6.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. ...............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 02.05.2011 Heard Mr. Khurshid Alam, counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the State. The petitioner in this writ application has sought following reliefs:- 'That this application is being filed for quashing letter no. 2261 dated 24.12.2007 by which the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that father of the petitioner has not been taken into regular establishment till the date of his death i.e. 24.12.2005. The said rejection order has been rejected by Sri Rakesh Kumar, Executive Engineer, Building Division, Bhagalpur, who has mentioned in his letter that it is not possible to forward the application of the petitioner for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground and has returned the form submitted by the petitioner. That the respondents may further be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the 2 hardship due to death of the bread earner of the family of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner of the family. That the petitioner prays for following reliefs: (a) That writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued for quashing the letter no. 2261 dated 24.12.2007 and to accept the form of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. (b) That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. (c)That any other relief or reliefs may be granted to the petitioner for which he is entitled under law. Mr. Alam learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the solitary reason given by the respondents in the impugned order dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure-1) reading as follows:- dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk dk dk;kZy; Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] Hkou ize.My HkkxyiqjA i=ka la0 2261@vuq0 Hkkxyiqj] fnukad 24@12@07 izs"kd] jkds'k dqekj dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk Hkou ize.My] HkkxyiqjA lsok esa] Jh eks0 ruohj] firk&Lo0 egewn vyh irk&NksVh [katjiqj] Fkkuk&cjkjh] iks0&cM+h [katjiqj] Hkkxyiqj ftyk&HkkxyiqjA fo"k;& vuqdEik dk QkeZ tek djus ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkosnu i= fnukad 09@10@07 ls izkIr fofgr vkosnu i= tks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr gS] ds dze esa dguk gS fd vkids Lo0 firk th Jh eks0 egewn vyh] dk;ZHkkfjrk LFkkiuk esa feDlj [kyklh ds in ij dk;Zjr FksA e`R;q ds frfFk 24@12@05 rd fu;fer LFkkiuk esa ifj.kr ugha gq, FksA 3 fu;ekuqlkj dk;ZHkkfjrk LFkkiuk ls fu;fer LFkkiuk esa ifj.kr gq, deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJr dks vuqdEik dk ykHk ns; gSA tc rd foHkkx ds }kjk Lo0 firk th ds lsok fu;fer LFkkiuk esa ifj.kr ughas fd;k tkrk gS rcrd vkosfnr vkosnu i= dks vxzsRrj dkjZokbZ gsrq vxzlkfjr djuk lEHko izrhr ughas gksrkA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkils izkIr fofgr vkosnu i= dks okil fd;k tkrk gSA fo'oklHkktu g0@& vLi"V ¼jkds'k dqekj½ dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk] Hkou ize.My] HkkxyiqjA is apparently in teeth of the judgment of the Division Bench, in the case of Koshi Project Workers’s Association & Anr vs The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2007(1) PLJR 358, wherein, it has been held that every work charge employee on completion of one year of service would be deemed to have already become regular employee. Proceeding on the basis of the said judgment of the Division Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that when the father of the petitioner had admittedly worked for the period of more than 27 years, the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground could not have been rejected merely on the ground that the father of the petitioner was never regularized in service from work charge establishment. 4 Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, counsel for the State on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavits filed by him has however submitted that the issue in hand as raised by the petitioner with regard to the appointment of a dependent employee of work charge establishment dying in harness has been straightway answered by this Court in its two Division Bench Judgments in the case of Mukesh Kumar Mishra vs The State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 2003(4) PLJR 758 as well as in the case of Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(4) PLJR 889,wherein, while explaining and interpreting the Government policy for appointment on compassionate ground dated 05.10.1991, it has been held that only such persons would be entitled for consideration of their dependent ward for appointment on compassionate ground, whose own appointment was made against sanctioned post and after undergoing the prescribed procedure. Mr. Ujjwal, therefore, has submitted that it was in the light of this settled 5 aforesaid restriction made in the policy that the Division Bench has held that the work charge employee does not hold a sanctioned post nor his appointment is said to have been made in proper manner, inasmuch as, the work charge establishment is carried from time to time depending on the nature of work. In the considered opinion of this Court, such plea of the petitioner that services of his father would be deemed to have been regularized has to be only noted for its being rejected at least for the limited purposes of relief sought in this writ application confined to only consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. In this context it has to be kept in mind that when the petitioner himself had filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground soon after the death of his father on 24.12.2005, he had filled up the prescribed proforma in the column of service of his father that he was working in work charge establishment. Moreover no order has been produced by the petitioner in the entire writ application, which can show that the father of 6 the petitioner was initially taken on a work charge establishment but subsequently his service had been regularized. Thus the impugned order recording this aspect that the father of the petitioner was never regularized in the regular establishment does not suffer from any error. The father of the petitioner thus will be deemed to be a work charge employee both on account of admission made by the petitioner in his own application for appointment on compassionate ground as also the factual assertion made by the respondents in the impugned order and also in the counter affidavit. Once this aspect becomes clear that the father of the petitioner till the date of his death was working in work charge establishment there would be no escape from the law laid down by this court in two division bench judgments in the case of Mukesh Kumar Mishra (supra) and Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya (supra), that a dependent of a work charge employee is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus there is no option but to hold that the petitioner is not entitled for 7 appointment on compassionate ground. The reliance placed on the division bench judgment on Koshi Project Workers case (supra) is also wholly misplaced inasmuch as the same has not noticed the aforesaid two earlier division bench judgments and in fact also not address itself to the issue of compassionate appointment. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)