Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 815 (PAT)

Mst. Buchia Devi v. State Of Bihar

2004-08-12

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the orders, as contained in annexures 8 and 10 dated 22.8.1996 and 30.8.1997, respectively, whereby and whereunder claim of petitioner no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. Precisely, the question, which has fallen for consideration in this case, is as to whether the adopted son of the deceased Government servant would be entitled for employment on compassionate ground. 4. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that petitioner no. 2 claims to be the adopted son of deceased Hira Lal Chaudhary and on account of the death of Hira Lal Chaudhary aforesaid, he filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. His application was processed and considered by the authorities and ultimately, the same was rejected vide order, as contained in annexure 8. The petitioner thereafter filed the deed of adoption before the authorities to reconsider his case. But his claim again was rejected by order, as contained in annexure 10. 5. From the tenor of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the claim of petitioner no. 2 has been rejected in view of the stipulation made in circular dated 5.10.1991, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna, wherein it is stated that adopted son would not be treated as dependent of deceased Government employee. 6. This question has been considered by this Court time without number and it has been held that adopted son of a deceased Government employee for all practical purposes is as good as a natural son and he comes in the category of dependents. 7. In case of Kamal Ranjan V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. [1994(2) Patna Law Journal Reports 536] a Bench of this Court held that adopted son of a deceased Government servant dying in harness comes in the category of the dependents and he is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 8. This Court at the same time set aside that portion of the circular dated 5.10.1991, as referred to above, whereby and where under an adopted son was not treated as dependent of the deceased Government servant. 9. Again a Bench of this Court in case of Madhusudan Mishra V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 8. This Court at the same time set aside that portion of the circular dated 5.10.1991, as referred to above, whereby and where under an adopted son was not treated as dependent of the deceased Government servant. 9. Again a Bench of this Court in case of Madhusudan Mishra V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. ( 1996 BBCJ 87 ) endorsed the same view as rendered earlier by this Court in case of Kamal Ranjan (supra). 10. The question, which has been raised in this case, therefore, is squarely covered by the judgments, as referred to above, and circular dated 5.10.1991, thus, in no way, would come in the way of petitioner no. 2 to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. 11. Learned counsel for the State, however, has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Deepak Kumar Tiwari V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. [2004(2) Patna Law Journal Reports 19]. 12. In case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari {supra), a Bench of this Court held that the rules framed by the Bihar State Electricity Board cannot be interfered with and this Court cannot compel the employer to make appointment on compassionate ground de hors the Rules. 13. It would be pertinent to mention here that a Bench of this Court while dealing with the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari (.supra) has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Kamal Ranjan (supra) and has distinguished the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwary (supra) from that of Kamal Ranjan (supra). The decisions, as referred to above, rendered by this Court in cases of Kamal Ranjan (supra) and Madhusudan Mishra (supra), thus, cover the field of this case and they hold good. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal propositions, as referred to above, petitioner no. 2, who claims to be adopted son of deceased Hira Lal Chaudhary, is held to be one of the dependents of Hira Lal Chaudhary and would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 15. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and orders, as contained in annexures 8 and 10, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above. 15. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and orders, as contained in annexures 8 and 10, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above. This exercise, however, must be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. No order as to costs.