IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9192 of 2009 WAKIL RAI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner: - Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State: - Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath (A.A.G.-4) Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath (AC to AAG-4) ------------ 3. 2.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner an employee in the department of Agricultural met with an accident when he fell of the roof resulting in 60% physical disability by reason of his spinal and vertebrae injury. He seeks compassionate appointment for his son on the ground of his own medical invalidation by placing reliance of a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 2008 (S.C.W.) 6114 (V. Sivamurthy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) Compassionate appointment has been held to be an exception/ inroad to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India that employment in Government service is a national wealth open for consideration to all and every appointment has to be made by open advertisement and selection. Therefore, the Courts have held that any claim or consideration for compassionate appointment has to be strictly in terms of the policy decision regulating the same. The claim 2 of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the State Government does not have any policy to consider for compassionate appointment on ground of physical incapacitation of an employee. Each case has to be decided on its own merits and facts. In the case of (supra) the Supreme Court gave directions for consideration arising out of a factual situation where the Government of Andhra Pradesh had in fact framed guidelines for consideration of wards of persons physically incapacitated in government service, for compassionate appointment. This is amply clear from Paragraph-2 of the judgment read with Paragraph 9(c) thereof. In 2007(2) SCC 481 National Institute of Technology Das & Ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, it has been held at para 14 as follows:- “14. Appointment on compasionate ground would be illegal in absence of any scheme providing therefore. Such scheme must be commensurate with the constitutional scheme of equality.” There is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. It is accordingly rejected. This Court holds that there is no infirmity in the impugned order to that extent. 3 In so far as the relief with regard to his service career is concerned, this Court observes that notwithstanding his physical incapacitation, so long the master servant relationship survives, the petitioner shall be entitled to all his service dues and benefits. Keeping his physical condition in mind, this Court further considers it necessary to observe that there is a humane aspect to every problem and that shall not be lost sight of by the respondents in the limited nature of the relief given to the petitioner. If he is compelled to approach this Court again for any such relief, the matter may be viewed very seriously by this Court. The writ application is dismissed on the former prayer but disposed with directions on the latter prayer. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)