IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.273 of 2007 Anil Kumar Paswan, son of Late Brij Lal Paswan, resident of village- Champawati, P.S. Sarsi, District- Purnea ……. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Commissioner and Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea 4.Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Purnea 5.District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Purnea ………… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Satish Chandra Jha No.3,Adv. For the State : Mr.Nirmal Kumar, G.P.4 with Mr.Vishwambhar Prasad, A.C. to G.P.4 ----------- 3. 09/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Annexure-1, the communication from the office of the Collector, Purnea dated 18.4.2000, to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea is under challenge in this writ application, by which he has been communicated that the District Compassionate Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment on the ground that it was not filed within time. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground as he was shouldering the burden of entire family. Facts of the case are that father of - 2 - the petitioner died on 17.3.1990 while working as Gangman in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Purnea. After his death, the eldest son of the deceased employee, Manoj Kumar Paswan, filed an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. His application remained pending with the respondents for almost two years. In the meanwhile, while the said application was being processed, the mother of the petitioner filed an application, which was received in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Purnea on 17.11.1993, requesting therein that as her eldest son was not looking after the family of the deceased, respondents may consider appointing second son of the deceased, i.e. the present petitioner, on compassionate ground as he was looking after the entire family of the deceased now. This application is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. Along with the said application, as many as 8 documents were filed by the mother of the petitioner. The matter remained pending with the respondents and it appears that at some point of time, respondents had asked for - 3 - affidavit from the other members of the family of the deceased in support of the claim of the petitioner, in response to which separate affidavits of members of the family, including that of first son Manoj Kumar Paswan, were filed some time in 1998-99 along with the application of this petitioner. That application of the petitioner was processed and placed before the District Compassionate Committee and has been rejected by Annexure-1 on the ground that the same was not submitted within time. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, same stand has been reiterated that since the petitioner had filed application in 1999, the same was time barred and therefore was rejected. Upon being confronted with Annexure-2, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the application of the mother of the petitioner was not in the format and therefore it was not considered. He also submits that order of rejection is of the year 2000 whereas petitioner has moved this Court belatedly in 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that once the request of - 4 - the widow of the deceased was received in the office of the respondents for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, onus lay on the respondents to get the formalities completed and take decision on such request. He also submits that it was only in 1998 petitioner somehow came to know that the said application of the widow of the deceased employee was not being considered for want of affidavits and formal application of the petitioner. Therefore, after verifying from the respondents, petitioner submitted application in the format along with affidavits and therefore, his application cannot be rejected on that ground. Provisions for compassionate appointment is meant to give financial assistance to the family of the deceased to meet the hardship caused due to the sudden death of a Government servant in service. Therefore, if a request is made for compassionate appointment, and it is found that some members of the family is eligible for such appointment, the authorities are required to take positive steps for providing succour to the family immediately by appointing one person of the family and for - 5 - this purpose, technical objections should not come in the way. Once a claim is made for compassionate appointment, entire responsibility lies on the respondents to process the same as expeditiously as possible, take steps for removal of any technical defects in the application and consider the same on merits. Application of the widow of the deceased was admittedly received in time. Eight documents had been attached with the same for consideration of the respondents. A clear request had been made in the same to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. If respondents wanted an application of the petitioner directly and in the format, it was their duty to contact the family and get the same. Apparently, respondents have not done that. They completely ignored the application of the widow of the deceased and application submitted by the petitioner in 1999 was taken as first application for compassionate appointment. Respondents’ plea is too technical to be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated that after the family came - 6 - to know about rejection of the application of the petitioner, the widow approached different authorities for reconsideration of the claim vide Annexures- 4 and 5 series. This explains the delay of seven years in moving this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief. In the circumstances, impugned Annexure-1, namely, the communication of rejection of application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment, is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment immediately on merits and pass appropriate orders positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)