IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12400 of 2009 GOVIND JHA SON OF LATE JAGDISH JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANGA EAST VIA-KALUAHI, P.S. ARER, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SOUTH), BIHAR ZONE, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA BUILDING CIRCLE, PATNA 6. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOUTH BIHAR CIRCLE, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DIVISION NO.1, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA ----------- 11 10.05.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon the death of the husband the mother of petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the work charge establishment although she was required to be appointed in the permanent establishment on account of the death of her husband who was in permanent establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the letter no. 2282 Patna dated 24th December, 1997 as contained in Annexure-6 the respondent no.4 directed the respondent no.5 that the services of the mother of the petitioner be regularized in the permanent establishment as Class IV employee against the vacant post and report the compliance. The same having not done and in the meantime the mother of the petitioner died on 25th April, 2007, the respondent no.4 again directed the respondent no.5 to carry out the earlier direction vide letter no. 735 dated 13.05.2009 vide Annexure-10. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid - 2 - instructions as contained in Annexures-6 & 10 the respondent no.5 has not passed any order with the result the petitioner who is the son of the deceased employee is not receiving the pensionary benefits as also the compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the State submits that necessary decision shall be taken as per law. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims as highlighted in this writ application, petitioner proposes to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the respondent no.5 by way of a representation with a copy to the respondent no.4 along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks. In such view of the matter, the respondent no.4 is, hereby, directed to take final decision and pass the necessary orders considering the grievance of the petitioner in the light of Annexures- 6 & 10 as referred to the above expeditiously preferably within a period of three months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner could be settled at the earlier. In case the representation of the petitioner finds favour the necessary consequential orders may also be issued simultaneously. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)