Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 85 (PAT)

Jageshwar Ray v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-20

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of termination as contained in memo no. 891 dated 30.3.2000 as contained in Annexure 6. 3. According to the case of the petitioner he was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 13.12.1994 on account of death of his mother who was also an employee of the State Government. The petitioner thereafter continued to serve under the respondents and all of a sudden by the impugned order he has been terminated from services on the ground that his father is still serving under the State of Bihar. Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father and mother of the petitioner were living separately which would be evident from Annexure 1, the affidavit filed by the mother of the petitioner and keeping in view this aspect of the matter, the case of the petitioner was considered for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his mother in harness. The authorities were well aware about the service tenure of the father of the petitioner and the appointment of the petitioner in that view of the matter, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 4. According to the case of the State as disclosed in the counter affidavit, it would appear that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground not knowing the fact that his father was also a Government servant under the State of Bihar. The petitioner never disclosed this fact either in the application for appointment on compassionate ground or subsequent to that. When this matter was brought to the notice of the State authorities, they re-examined the question of appointment of the petitioner and it was found to be in violation of the circular of the State Government and, therefore, the order impugned was issued. 5. It is not in dispute that father of the petitioner namely Mahadeo Rai is still serving under the State of Bihar and his mother was also an employee who subsequently died on 10.11.1994. 6. Appointments on compassionate ground are made on account of death of the bread earner of the family. 5. It is not in dispute that father of the petitioner namely Mahadeo Rai is still serving under the State of Bihar and his mother was also an employee who subsequently died on 10.11.1994. 6. Appointments on compassionate ground are made on account of death of the bread earner of the family. The petitioner, as it appears, had not disclosed the factum of continuance of his father in service under the State of Bihar and had it been so done, there would have been no occasion at all for the State authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground as the father of the petitioner was already in service. 7. In the given facts and circumstances, it does not appear to be a case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner on account of death of his mother. There is nothing on record to show that there was complete severance in between the father and mother of the petitioner and merely because his parents were living separately, it would hardly be a ground for considering his appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his mother. The appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, thus, appears to be contrary to the provisions of law and circulars of the State Government. 8. Regard being had the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this application. 9. It is accordingly dismissed.