IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9247 of 2006 SALMA TARANNUM,D/O LATE BASHIRUDDIN, R/O MOHALLA-GHANICHAK, P.S.-MAZAHIDPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRIC WORKS CIRCLE, PATNA. 5.THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEEER, ELECTRIC WORKS DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 6.MD. ZAFAR IMA, CLAIMING TO BE SON OF LATE BASHIRUDDIN AND ANWARI KHATOON, R/O VILLAGE- DAMARIA, P.O. ANISABAD, P.S.GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 29.03.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties as also taking into account the limited prayer that has been sought in this writ application as with regard to quashing of the recommendation of the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Works Division, Bhagalpur, sending the case of respondent no. 6 ( Md. Zafar Imam) for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground, this Court would find it difficult to interfere in the matter, inasmuch as, the records suggest that late Md. Bashiruddin, the deceased employee had a son by way of respondent no. 6 ( Md. Zafar Imam) and also two daughters 2 including the petitioner. Once such competing claim of the son and daughter of the deceased employee was to be decided, the authorities had no option but to follow the Government circular wherein, the son has been given precedence in the matter of compassionate appointment as against the unmarried daughters. If the petitioner however has a grievance that there was no inquiry, in terms of the order of this Court dated 27.06.2005, and no authority had gone to hold that Md. Zafar Imam, respondent no. 6, was the son of the deceased employee as has been highlighted by her counsel who has submitted that since in an earlier report of the Chief Electrical Engineer it had been held that Md. Bashiruddin the deceased employee had married Shahjahan Begum and the petitioner is the daughter of Shahjahan Begum, she ought to have been appointed on compassionate ground. Specially when in the nomination made by late Md. Bashiruddin, the deceased employee as with regard to payment his Provident Fund, where he had bequeathed 50% to his wife and 3 25% each to his two daughters. Reliance has been placed on the succession certificate issued by the Civil Court, wherein claim for receiving payment of the amount of leave encashment and the amount deposited in the State Bank of India of late Md. Bashiruddin was allowed in favour of the mother of the petitioner. Counsel for the State, on the other hand by placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has submitted that the claim of the mother of the petitioner for her appointment vis-a-vis respondent no. 6 ( Md. Zafar Imam) was duly considered by the competent departmental authorities but also by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, on two occasions namely on 13.12.2005 and again on 02.06.2008 but on both the occasions, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had come to a clear finding that respondent no.6 (Md. Zafar Imam) being the son of late Md. Bashiruddin had a better claim of his appointment on compassionate ground. Thus 4 there was no flaw in consequential order of appointment issued in favour of respondent no.6 (Md. Zafar Imam) was on 21.02.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner has not assailed the order of appointment of Respondent no. 6 dated 21.02.2009 in this writ application. Moreover the petitioner's claim for her own appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of succession certificate is also misconceived inasmuch as the same was confined to only two items namely, the amount of leave encashment of Md. Bashiruddin and certain amount deposited by him in State Bank of India. There was no such declaration sought from the Civil Court by the petitioner, or her mother, that Md. Bashiruddin had not married any other lady and respondent no.6 (Md. Zafar Imam) was not the son of late Md. Bashiruddin. Additionally, the nomination made by Md. Bashiruddin for the apportionment of his Provident Fund, can also not be a proof of the fact that respondent no. 6 (Md. Zafar Imam) was not the son of the deceased employee, late Md. Bashiruddin. 5 Such zinxed question of facts as to whether Md. Bashiruddin had a son by way of respondent no. 6 (Md. Zafar Imam) could also not have been adjudicated by the departmental authorities in their limited inquiry. Thus if the petitioner, therefore, was/is still of the view that respondent no. 6 (Md. Zafar Imam) is an imposter and had no concern with the family of Md. Bashiruddin much less being his son, the remedy for the petitioner was/is to seek a declaration from the Civil Court to this effect. Admittedly, the petitioner is aware of this aspect right from the beginning but then she has not chosen to question the relationship of Md. Zafar Imam with late Md. Bashiruddin in any Civil Court. Whatever documents have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are insufficient to hold that Md. Zafar Imam was not the son of Md. Bashiruddin. On the contrary the categorical finding of the Executive Engineer, the controlling authority of late Md. Bashiruddin, in his recommendation is that Md. Bashiruddin had a son by way of respondent no. 6 (Md. Zafar 6 Imam). Thus when his case was forwarded by departmental authorities for appointment on compassionate ground to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, which as noted above, on two occasions after considering the respective cases of the petitioner and others had recommended for appointment of respondent no.6, Md. Zafar Imam no procedural infirmity can be said to have been committed by the Respondent. In such a situation, it would be difficult for this Court to give any relief to the petitioner. The petitioner however, if so advised, may still move the Civil Court for a declaration that respondent no. 6, Md. Zafar Imam, is not the son of late Md. Bashiruddin and in case, she files such case not only by impleading Md. Zafar as also the officials of the State of Bihar, under whose decision respondent no.6, Md. Zafar Imam, has been appointed on compassionate ground and is eventually successful in establishing that respondent no.6 is not the son of late Md. Bashiruddin, the authorities will have to consider the claim of the petitioner provided 7 that till such time, the petitioner would remain unmarried and also otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of the Government Policy. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)