Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 519 (PAT)

Prashuram Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2004-05-07

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is adopted son of deceased Brahmadeo Prasad, his application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected only on the ground that the adopted sons are not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the adopted son of deceased Brahmadeo Prasad, who died in harness on 12.5.1992 and the petitioner thereafter applied for his appointment on compassionate ground in prescribed proforma in 1992 itself, but no communication, whatsoever, has been made to him either appointing him or rejecting his prayer. 4. Today a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner does not come in the category of the dependents of late Brahmadeo Prasad and as such, his claim for appointment on compassionate ground is fit to be rejected as per Government circular. 5. The question as to whether an adopted son is as good as son of deceased Government employee is no longer res integra and by various judgments of this Court, it has been decided holding that the adopted son comes in the category of the dependents for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. 6. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of KamaI Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [1994(2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 536, Madhusudan Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [1996(1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 482] and M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors vs. Ujjawal Kumar Ray and others [1998(1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 769]. 7. In view of the legal propositions, as noticed above, the stand of the State as disclosed in the counter affidavit that the petitioner does not come in the category of the dependents as being the adopted son of the deceased Government servant is wholly untenable and unfounded. 8. The prayer of the petitioner, thus, is required to be considered in light of the judgments, as referred to above. 9. 8. The prayer of the petitioner, thus, is required to be considered in light of the judgments, as referred to above. 9. In that view of the matter, the decision taken by the State authority rejecting the application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground in light of the judgments of this Court, as referred to above. This exercise, however, must be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.