IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16707 of 2007 JAVED EQBAL ANSARI @ MD.JAVED EQBAL ANSARI @ GHULAM RABBANI, R/O VILLAGE-DHOBI GALI, DABUR LINE, QUARTER NO. 14, P.S. JUGSALAI, DISTRICT-JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND. ………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI. 2.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, P.H.E.D JHARKHAND. 3.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, P.H.E.D, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.E.D. DIVISION, ADITYAPUR, JHARKHAND. ………………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Md. Najmul Hoda and Mr. Rahmatullah, Advocates. For the State of Bihar: Mr. Shailendra KumarJha, Advocate. For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. N.N Ojha. ----------- 02/ 13.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State of Bihar and counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is confined to his appointment on compassionate ground, on the basis that his father is said to have been missing since 01.04.1996. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner had reported on duty till 29.03.1996 and thereafter, he was found missing and in such a situation the widow, the mother of the petitioner had filed and application before the controlling 2 authority of the father of the petitioner, both for grant of family pension as also for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. To that extent, he would place reliance on an application dated 15.04.2004. He further submits that, on such an application, though the family pension has been sanctioned by the authority and the mother of the petitioner is receiving such family pension from the State of Jharkhand, but the respondents have not considered the case of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Counsel for the State of Jharkhand has raised two pleas namely, that since the father of the petitioner was missing from 1996, the duty to consider the case for compassionate appointment would lie on the State of Bihar, inasmuch as, it would be a case of prior to 15.11.2000, the appointed date of bifurcation of the State as per Bihar Reorganization Act. He would further submit that in any event petitioner has not filed the application in the prescribed proforma or even an application by himself seeking appointment on compassionate ground within the prescribed period of limitation, which in this case would be from 3 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 i.e., on completion of period of 7 years from the date of the presumptive death of the father of the petitioner i.e within 5 years from the date of such prescribed period of limitation as per the Government policy. Counsel for the State of Bihar, on the other hand would submit that the presumptive death having taken place in the month of April 2003, only after completion of period of 7 years, the State of Bihar will have nothing to do either in respect of making payment of family pension or offering appointment on compassionate ground. He would in this regard also rely on the voluntary action of the State of Jharkhand in paying family pension to the mother of the petitioner for supporting herself and thus according to him even, the liability of making compassionate appointment of the petitioner if any will be of the State of Jharkhand. In the considered opinion of this Court, the submission of the counsel for the State of Bihar has to be accepted, for the reason,that the cause of action for compassionate appointment of the petitioner or 4 any dependent family member, arose after the completion of a period of 7 years from the date of his missing, inasmuch as, Section 108 of the Evidence Act pre-supposes the presumption of death only on completion of period of 7 years from the date a person in missing and not heard of. Thus when the date of missing of the father of the petitioner is 01.04.1996 his death can be presumed only after 31.03.2003. The State of Jharkhand had however come into existence on 15.11.2000, Thus it is the State of Jharkhand which has to bear every liability of the father of the petitioner including appointing his dependents because he was working in the State of Jharkhand at the time of his last day of service i.e. 21.03.1996. It is on that basis that the State of Jharkhand in fact has also been paying family pension to the mother of the petitioner. In that view of the matter it has to be held that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground would also be the liability of the State of Jharkhand. Since, the presumptive death of the father of the petitioner is 31.03.2003. Thus keeping in view that the liability of appointment on compassionate ground is of 5 the State of Jharkhand, this Court would now direct the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand to find out as to whether the petitioner had ever filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground and if such application was filed in between or on any date prior to 31st March, 2008, the same must be considered as per the existing policy. It is also made clear that if there is no such application of the petitioner available on record of the respondent authorities of the State of Jharkhand, they will be required to reject the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order and communicate the same to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. It however, goes without saying that if such application of the petitioner is found on record, an appropriate decision as per the Government policy of compassionate appointment would also be taken within the aforesaid period of four months. Let it be made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner on compassionate 6 ground and it is for the respondent officials of the State of Jharkhand to take their own independent decision strictly in accordance with the policy. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)