Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 999 (PAT)

Dinesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-12

NARAYAN ROY

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground, as his father died in harness on 23.9.1999. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 stating therein that the second wife of the deceased had also applied for her appointment on compassionate ground and pursuant to the direction of this Court, issued in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 589 of 2001, as contained in annexure E to the counter affidavit, she was appointed on Class IV post vide order, as contained in annexure G to the counter affidavit. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the son from the first wife of the deceased, and, therefore, he is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. It appears that the petitioner and Usha Devi, the second wife of the deceased, both approached in writ jurisdiction of this Court simultaneously seeking appointment on compassioante ground. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 589 of 2001 filed by Usha Devi aforesaid was disposed of on 15.1.2001 directing respondent no. 2 to take expeditious steps for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, pursuant to which Usha Devi has been appointed on compassionate ground. 6. Since second wife of the deceased had been appointed on compassionate ground, this writ application at the behest of the son of the deceased from the first wife is not maintainable. Appointment on compassionate ground is made to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family on account of the death of the deceased and keeping in view this policy and the Rules framed by the State Government, one of the members of the deceaseds family being dependent of the deceased has been appointed on compassionate ground and that too pursuant to the direction of this Court, as referred to above. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.