IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8102 of 2008 Smirti Ranjan Verma, Son of Late Rakesh Ranjan Verma, resident of village and P.O. Sundari, P.S. Barharia, District Siwan……………………………………………………………..……….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Health Department, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Siwan. 3. Establishment Deputy Collector, Siwan. 4. Director–in-Chief, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. District Malaria Officer, Siwan, District Siwan………………………………………….Respondents ----------------- 3 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as Basic Health Worker. It is his case that he has been performing his duties in the Primary Health Centre as Basic Health Inspector under the orders of the Incharge Medical Officer of the Centre. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since petitioner was qualified; his appointment on compassionate ground should have been made on the post of Basic Health Inspector and not on the post of Basic Health Worker. In any case, petitioner prays that since he 2 has been performing his duties of the post of Basic Health Inspector, he should be paid due salary of the post and other benefits. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated that post of Basic Health Inspector is a promotional post and no appointment is directly made on the same. It is also stated that petitioner never worked as Basic Health Inspector. Hence, he is not entitled for salary and other monetary benefits of the post. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-9/2 annexed with the supplementary affidavit which is a photo copy of the proceeding of the Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 02.05.1986 which shows that one Adarsh Kumar Srivastava was appointed on compassionate ground directly as Basic Health Inspector. On the basis of this decision of the Compassionate Committee, he submits that stand of the respondents that post of Basic Health Inspector is a promotional post is not correct. 3 It is difficult for this Court to base its finding in this respect on the proceeding of the Compassionate Appointment Committee of 1986 as petitioner was appointed in 1997 i.e. almost 11 years after and it cannot be ruled out that situation might have changed in between this period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in 1996 initially the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Basic Health Inspector. Even then it is difficult for this Court to accept the claim of the petitioner for his direct appointment on the post of Basic Health Inspector after passage of almost ten years. Admittedly, petitioner joined in 1997 on the post of Basic Health Worker and he has filed this writ application in 2008 claiming that he should have been appointed as Basic Health Inspector at the initial stage itself. So far as working of the petitioner on the post of Basic Health Inspector is concerned, this fact is being disputed by respondents. Hence, no positive orders can be passed for allowing 4 petitioner benefits of the post in accordance with law. However, if the petitioner is able to establish from records that he is actually performing the duties of the post of Basic Health Inspector, respondents shall be obliged to consider his case for grant of benefits accruing to him on account of such functioning. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)