IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6177 of 2010 1. SAZIDA KHATOON, W/O MD. HURSHID @ KUSHO R/O VILLAGE - NAVI NAGAR KAKRAR, P.S - ARIARI, DISTRICT - SHEIKHPURA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ,SHEIKHPURA. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAYS MANAGER, DANAPUR, PATNA, BIHAR. 4. RUKSHANA, D/O MD. WALI ALAM R/O MOHALLA BARI PAHARI, P.S -BIHAR, DISTRICT - NALANDA. 5. MD. MOKTARI, S/O MD. TAIAB, R/O VILLAGE- KAKRAR, P.S + DISTRICT - SHEIKHPURA. 6. PUKHSANA KHATOON, W/O MD. KOKHTAR MULLICK , D/O MD. WALI ALAM, R/O MOHALLA BARI PAHARI ,P.S - BIHAR, DISTRICT - NALANDA. ----------- 3/ 17/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Railways and for private Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The husband of Respondent No.4 was killed in a terrorist attack on 26.11.2008 at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Station, Mumbai. The Railways under a scheme decided to grant compensation and compassionate appointment to the ward/family member/legal heir of the deceased. The monetary compensation was received by Respondent No.4. She regretted to accept compassionate appoint on grounds of ill health and requested the same to be provided to her cousin, Respondent No.5, contending that he would then look after her from the benefits of the employment. That came to be granted also. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased and mother-in-law of Respondent No.4. She questions the entire receipt of the compensation amount by the wife of the deceased to her exclusion contending that 2 she has five other daughters including a widowed daughter and another son to maintain. Her husband is acknowledged to be alive. From the pleadings of the parties and the manner with which they are litigating with each other, the Court does not consider it necessary to go into the details. Suffice it to hold that the relationship between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law definitely appears acrimonious. If the petitioner opines that she had a share in the compensation amount also or that her daughter-in- law is required to maintain her from the same, the petitioner has more than adequate remedies under the civil laws of the land and therefore there is no occasion for the Court to examine this disputed question in the writ jurisdiction. Respondent No.5 cannot be classified as a ward/legal heir of the deceased. To that extent his appointment may not be justified. But, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Railways today. From Annexure-D to the same dated 19.5.2009 it transpires that Respondent No.4 herself requested for the job to be provided to her cousin who shall then look after her with the benefits of the employment. The power to do so is to be found in the Board‟s letter dated 18.12.2008 3 referred to therein vesting power in the General Manager of providing the appointment to another equally suitable person and giving livelihood to the family of the deceased and the dependant. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to strongly contend that she comes within the definition of family. The Court has serious reservations if the petitioner shall qualify as a dependant of the deceased since her own husband is alive. The acrimonious relationship between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law the unusual and abnormal nature of the death of the deceased, the present litigation cannot be seen as a simple case of compassionate appointment regulated by the principles of service jurisprudence. The trauma that a mother may undergo for the death of her son during her life time is undoubtedly painful. She may still have the wherewithal to survive, but the untimely death of the husband in a brutal terrorist attack rendered the life of Respondent No.4 upside down overnight. She needs the wherewithal for surviving. The Court has no hesitation in observing that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the „family‟ and „dependant‟ used in the Railway Circular has to be read down to the wife of the deceased alone insofar as 4 the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned. In 1963(2) SCR 796 (Corpn. Of the City v Nagpur Handloom Cloth market Co.) it was observed:- “But the expression “family” has according to the context in which it occurs, a variable connotation. It does not in the setting of the rules postulate the existence of relationship either of blood or by marriage between the persons residing in the tenement.” The Court finds no merit in this application. The writ application is dismissed except to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)