Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 237 (PAT)

Manju Devi v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-02

BARIN GHOSH

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. While Government framed the policy for giving compassionate appointment, it was made clear that an adopted son will not be treated to be a dependent who shall be entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. This policy of the Government was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition which was ultimately decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1994(2) PLJR 536. For the reasons recorded in the said judgment, the Court struck down that portion of the Government policy by which the adopted son was excluded from the purview of a compassionate appointment. The State of Bihar did not challenge this decision of the Division Bench and permitted the same to reach finality. The State Government subsequent to that judgment also did not bring about a new policy by introducing the self same restriction. It accepted the principle enunciated by the Division Bench that son would include a natural son as well as an adopted son and went on giving compassionate appointments to even adopted sons. 3. In the Bihar State Electricity Board a compassionate appointment was available to an adopted son up to 21st April, 1993. By a Standing Order dated 21 st April, 1993 the Board withdrew the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground in the case of adopted sons. Subsequent to 21st April, 1993, an adopted son approached the Board for compassionate appointment. This was resisted on the ground that in terms of the Standing Order dated 21st April, 1993, an adopted son is not entitled to compassionate appointment and that the adoption claimed by the petitioner was not proved. The matter ultimately reached the Hon ble Supreme Court, when the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidut Board vs. Chhattu Ram and others reported in (1999)5 SCC 673 upheld the decision of the Board of not giving appointment on compassionate ground to the adopted son as was prayed for in that case. While the matter was decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidut Board vs. Chhattu Ram and others (supra), the decision of this court in the case of Kamal Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra) was not considered. While the matter was decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidut Board vs. Chhattu Ram and others (supra), the decision of this court in the case of Kamal Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra) was not considered. In a subsequent matter, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari vs. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others reported in 2004(2) PLJR 19 was once again faced with the problem whether an adopted son can be given compassionate appointment by the Board despite the policy of the Board not to give such compassionate appointment to an adopted son. Before the Division Bench strong reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant for appointment on the decision of the Division Bench delivered in the case of Kamal Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra). The Division Bench in the judgment delivered in the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari vs. Bihar State Electricity Board distinguished the judgment of the Division Bench in Kamal Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra) for two reasons; firstly, that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidut Board vs. Chhattu Ram and others (supra) has negatived the claim for compassionate appointment to an adopted son and secondly the judgment delivered in Kamal Ranjan vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) was rendered with regard to a circular issued by the State Government in a separate situation. In that view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Deepak Kumar Tiwari vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others (supra) has no impact on the ratio of the decision decided in Kamal Ranjan vs. State of Bihar and others (supra). In any event, as aforesaid, in Kamal Ranjan vs. State of Bihar and others (supra), the Court struck down the policy of not giving appointment on compassionate ground to an adopted son. When the Court struck down that policy, the slate become vacant and accordingly a portion of the policy, which prevented appointment to an adopted son cannot be looked at at all as the same does not exist. When the Court struck down that policy, the slate become vacant and accordingly a portion of the policy, which prevented appointment to an adopted son cannot be looked at at all as the same does not exist. As aforesaid, subsequent to the judgment given in Kamal Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra), no new policy has been introduced by the Government thereby preventing an adopted son from getting a compassionate appointment. 4. In such view of the matter, the impugned order by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is an adopted son of the deceased government employee is struck down with a direction upon respondent no. 5 to reconsider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its merits as quickly as possibly but not later than four weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him. This disposes of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.