Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 736 (PAT)

Pashupati Nath Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-23

R.S.GARG

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved of his non-appointment on compassionate ground has come to this Court by filing this writ application. According to him his father Late Kashinath Mishra who was working as Assistant Teacher died in harness on 20.4.2000. According to him his application was favourably considered by Circle Officer, but unfortunately order of appointment was not issued in his favour. 3. The respondents have filed their counter alongwith annexure A, proceeding dated 27.12.2001, in which case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he is the only son of his deceased father and there are no dependents upon him. His mother has already died, therefore his application be rejected. 4. On being asked by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the deceased father left no liability on the shoulder of the present applicant and as the wife and children of the applicant are the personal responsibility of the present petitioner the case was rightly rejected. When this Court asked learned counsel for the respondent to show any rule or law that appointment on compassionate ground can be made only in a case the deceased leaves certain liabilities on the shoulder of the person who is seeking compassionate appointment, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no such law but the rule of prudence so requires. 5. In the opinion of this Court the liability of father or grand father to maintain his children and grand children is much more in case his children or grand children are unemployed. The State cannot be allowed to say that the fathers liability is only towards his children or the husbands liability is towards his wife only. They cannot be allowed to say that the responsibility of the grand children in the family in case the son is unemployed is not of grand father. 6. If the son is unemployed then it is responsibility of the father to look after the children of his son and look after his sons wife, she being the daughter-in-law in the family. If the wife or the children of the son are held to be responsibility of the son only, then the father, the Government servant, would surely have no responsibility. The compassion comes from the core and not from the higher faculty. If the wife or the children of the son are held to be responsibility of the son only, then the father, the Government servant, would surely have no responsibility. The compassion comes from the core and not from the higher faculty. The moment compassion is compared with regular appointment then the feeling to provide bread to the sufferer flies away. After all one has to look into the ground realities. The approach of the respondent is per se illegal, they cannot be allowed to say that the father left no liability, therefore petitioner would not be entitled to be appointed. 7. In a given case where the wife of the Government servant predeceased him then with this approach that the deceased left no liability the provision for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be nullified. If the father and mother are to look after their children and grand father/ grand mother have to look after their grand children, then on the death of the Government employee the son would be held responsible to maintain family and in case he is unemployed he certainly would be entitled to appointment. It cannot be argued that he may beg, borrow or steal to maintain his own family but would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. If the father is looking after his son and the daughter-in-law and their children then on the death of the father the son has to step in his shoes and maintain the family. 8. In the circumstances, it. cannot be assumed that the deceased left no liability and as such the petitioner would not be entitled to any order in his favour. 9. The order passed by the Compassionate Appointment Committee contained in annexure 1 so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned is quashed. The compassionate appointment committee is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made aforesaid. 10. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.