IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1034 of 2007 BIRJU KUMAR, S/O LATE RAM PRATAP MISTRI, R/O VILLAGE-ANANDPUR, P.O.-MORWA, P.S.-TAJPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DESHI CHIKITSA, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, RAJKIYA MAHARANI RAMESHWARI BHARTIYA CHIKITSA VIGYAN SANSTHAN, MOHANPUR, DARBHANGA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 6. THE ESTABLISHMENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA COLLECTORATE, DARBHANGA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Sr.Adv. and Mr. Shanti Pratap, Adv. For the State : Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh, AC to SC-VI. ----------- 2 16.07.2010 I.A. No. 2334 of 2008 This I.A. has been filed for liberty to the petitioner to challenge the resolution of the District Compassionate Committee dated 09.10.2006 (Annexure-7), so far as it relates to the petitioner, by which, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. There is no opposition to the I.A. Therefore, the I.A. is allowed. Petitioner is given liberty to challenge the said resolution of the Committee as contained 2 in Annexure-7. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 19.12.1999. His widow applied for her compassionate appointment some time in 2000. She was illiterate and thereafter her application was rejected by the Committee on 1.12.2000. Knowing that her application may not be considered for compassionate appointment due to she being an illiterate lady, the petitioner applied on 20.09.2002 for his compassionate appointment in place of his father which was also within time. His application was considered by the Committee in its meeting date 09.10.2006 and vide resolution, as contained in Annexure-7 with the I.A. application, the same was rejected on the ground that the matter with regard to compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee has already been rejected earlier. This is a peculiar stand taken by the Committee. This Court is surprised to find that the authorities have applied the principles of res judicata in the matter of compassionate appointment. If one of the applicants and dependents of the deceased 3 employee was not eligible for compassionate appointment, it was the duty of the respondents to find out whether any other dependent of the Government servant was eligible for such appointment, or not. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief to the family which cannot be denied on technical grounds. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for his compassionate appointment. In the circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The resolution of the Committee dated 09.10.2006, as contained in Annexure-7, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment on merits in the next meeting of the Committee itself and take a decision in accordance with law. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)