ORDER : By this writ petition, petitioner seeks compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, who was working as a Gardener (Mali). Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder are on record and with consent of parties, this writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage. 2. The petitioner’s father, namely, late Jagarnath Thakur, was appointed on 01.04.1982 on the post of Gardener (Mali) on daily wages. He was working in Garden Division of Building Construction Department at Main Secretariat vide letter and office order dated 16.06.1986 issued by the Chief Engineer, South Bihar, Building Construction Department, holding that 40 persons including the petitioner’s father had been working on daily wages since long. They were brought within the sanctioned vacant posts of Work Charge Gardeners. This order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. On 14.12.2009, petitioner’s father died in harness. It is as a consequence thereof, the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment. 3. In the counter affidavits, stand of the State is that petitioner’s father was never made permanent employee and as such there is no question of compassionate appointment being given to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner, on the other hand, has relied on a judgment of this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 16060 of 2004 dated 03.05.2007 (Subhash Paswan & Ors. vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.). In this case also, there was a consideration of Gardeners in the very department. This Court had held thus :- “In those circumstances, by reason of a rule made under provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the moment, the petitioners worked for a period in excess of 12 months in the post in which they were working in the work charge establishment, they became regular employees of the State. The question of their becoming permanent in the work charge establishment does not arise.” 5. In view of the said judgment of this Court, which was not interfered either in letters patent appeal or by the Apex Court as both were dismissed, petitioner’s father having, admittedly, worked in the work charge establishment for more than twelve months and as noted above were brought in the sanctioned vacant posts, he became a regular employee. He having become a regular employee, the right of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be defeated. He having become a regular employee, the right of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be defeated. As learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is now a Graduate but still family members are unemployed. 6. In view of what has been stated above, I have no option but to hold that petitioner’s father, at the time of his death, has to be treated as a regular employee of the State and, accordingly, the petitioner has to be considered for compassionate appointment. That being so, I direct the Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Patna Division, to immediately consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass necessary orders in that regard, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.