Vinay Kumar Prasad vs. The State Of Bihar& Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.328 of 2011

Vinay Kumar Prasad Son of Late Ram Bilash Rai R/o Village Ganj Gaurihar, P.S.-Sakra, District-Muzaffarpur ........Petitioner/Appellant .

Versus

• 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
• 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
• 3. The Collector/District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Compassionate Selection Committee, Muzaffarpur.
• 4. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Muzaffarpur through its Chairman.
• 5. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Muzaffarpur, Collectorate, Muzaffarpur.
• 6. The Circle Officer, Sakra, PS-Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur.
• 7. The Principal, Rai Bahadur Turki Sah Govt. Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur.................................................Respondent/Respondents -----------

4. 7.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

The concerned authority rejected the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment on account of death of appellant's

father in harness in the year 2005.

From the material on record it is clear that details of the income of family, the number of members in the family and the fact

that one of the sons of a deceased employee is a government servant were taken into consideration and the concerned Committee decided not to recommend the case of the appellant for compassionate payment.

Such decision was challenged by the appellant by preferring writ bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6013/2010 which has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated 12.1.2011.

The main submission on behalf of the appellant is that the scheme for compassionate appointment does not disqualify a family

for seeking compassionate appointment only because one of the members of the family happens to be in government service.

There is no dispute that the scheme does not lay down grounds for not allowing compassionate appointment. Certain conditions are mentioned in the scheme by way of eligibility qualification and there is no dispute that the family of the appellant fulfilled the eligibility qualification and hence his application was considered on merit and thereafter the concerned Committee did not recommend the case of the appellant mainly on the ground that one of the decease's son is in service.

A Division bench, in the case of Vishal Kumar Vs. State of Bihar clearly held that job on the basis of compassionate ground can be offered only to one person in the family and if one of its members is already gainfully employed, there is no obligation to offer a job on compassionate ground.

The Division Bench also indicated that but for special sanctity on account of immediate and dire needs of the family to be given a help, in fact an appointment on compassion is a back door entry in service.

The aforesaid judgment in the case of Vishal Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2004 PLJR 453 when read in the light of decision of the Apex Court relating to compassionate appointment in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ,1994 SCC 138 makes the entire legal position abundantly clear that there is no legal right to claim compassionate appointment when the authorities have considered the case as per the scheme and are of the view on the basis of relevant facts that the family has sufficient income or financial strength to take care of the crisis on account of death of a government servant in harness.

Merely because a family is eligible to apply does not create any legal right to get a compassionate appointment on account of mere eligibility.

In the present case, at the later stage, some dispute between the brothers has been shown to have taken place. That in our view does not affect the correctness of the decision making process or even the ultimate decision itself.

We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly,

dismissed.

( Shiva Kirti Singh, J. )

(Shivaji Pandey, J.)

Mahesh/-