JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioner has come with a prayer for quashing the decision of the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chaibasa as contained in Memo No. 15(A)/Estt. Dated 13.02.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, West Singhbhum, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ application is that the father of the petitioner Mr. Uday Tiwary (deceased) was appointed on the post of Work Charged Chowkidar vide an order of the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Jamshedpur as contained in Memo No. 812 dated 20.04.1982 and accordingly, he joined on the said post on 26.04.1982 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Singhbhum Road Division, Chaibasa. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner was posted on the post of Godown Choukidar in the office of Road Sub-division, Road Construction Department, Chakradharpur. It is stated that the father of the petitioner was employed and serving on the aforesaid post and he was allowed normal benefits of service such as, annual increments, leave, revised scale of pay from time to time. The Government of Bihar, Road Construction Department through its letter No. E-4/Baithak-101/92-4341(E) WE Patna dated 13.08.1992 had decided to regularize the services of Work Charged Employees with effect from the date of issue of the said letter wherein the name of father of the petitioner found place at Sl. No. 83 in the list of 13.08.1992. In compliance to the aforesaid decision of the Government of Bihar, Road Construction Department and also in compliance of the order of the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Jamshedpur as contained in memo No. 1177 dated 09.09.1992, the services of the deceased (father of the petitioner) were taken into regular establishment from the Work Charged Establishment w.e.f. 13.08.1992 vide order of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa as contained in memo No. 1082 dated 22.09.1992 and thus, the father of the petitioner had become a regular and permanent employee of the State Government and accordingly, he was in the permanent service of the Government. It has been further stated that the father of the petitioner while on duty in government service had met with a road accident on 20.03.2007 at Doranda, Ranchi and he was hospitalized in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi where he died during the course of treatment on the same day. The last rites was performed at his native place and a death certificate to that effect was issued on 23.03.2007. After the death of his father, petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground and in support of the said claim, the mother of the petitioner and also the elder brother of the petitioner had sworn affidavits dated 18.04.2007 inter alia stating therein that they have no objection if the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground. The mother of the petitioner through her application dated 17.05.2007, submitted an application for taking proper steps for appointment of her son on compassionate ground. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa through his letter dated 19.09.2007 sanctioned the provisional Family Pension in favour of the mother of the petitioner and also paid her the amount of gratuity, group insurance. Further it has been stated that full and final pension was also ordered to be paid to the mother of the petitioner from Aurangabad Treasury, which she has received. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa through his letter dated 09.07.2010 had directed the petitioner to submit a handwritten application for his compassionate appointment along with the attested copies of the requisite certificates. In view of the order of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, petitioner submitted an application dated 21.09.2010 before the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Chaibasa through proper channel stating therein that his date of birth is 10.11.1988 and he is the second son of his parents having qualification as graduation and as such, he be appointed on Class-III post. When nothing was done, petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 3073 of 2011 and the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.08.2011, disposed of the writ petition observing therein to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing. That along with the order of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner represented before the respondent No. 2 through his letter dated 26.08.2011 with a specific prayer for affording an opportunity of hearing and passing order for compassionate appointment. That along with the order of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner represented before the respondent No. 2 through his letter dated 26.08.2011 with a specific prayer for affording an opportunity of hearing and passing order for compassionate appointment. The District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, after due consideration, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2013 as contained in memo No. 15(A)/Estt. and hence, this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Binod Kumar, argues that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and without jurisdiction. The respondents-authorities have not taken into account that at the time of death, the father of the petitioner was a permanent government servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the provisions contained in memo No. 3/C-2-2067/90 Ka. 13293 Patna dated 05.10.1991 is fully applicable in the case of the petitioner and as such, he deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to Orders dated 30.03.2015 and 15.04.2015, by which this Hon’ble Court short clarification regarding the departmental letter No. 4379 dated 16.07.2008, the Principal Secretary, Personneal, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. Learned counsel further submits that in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit and have brought the letter dated 16.07.2008 (Annexure-A) to the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit filed 12.08.2016. In paras-12 & 13 of the said counter-affidavit, it has been held that, “12. That, it is worth to mention here that upon the death of an employee, regularized from the work charged establishment, the dependent will be entitled to the benefit of compassionate ground. 13. That accordingly the position has also been clarified vide letter No. 8092 dated 07.09.2015.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of letter dated 16.07.2008 and the clarification dated 07.09.2015, the petitioner deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground and his case should be reconsidered and as such, the impugned order dated 13.02.2013 as contained in Memo No. 15(A)/Esttt. dated 13.02.2013, is fit to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel, Mr. K.M. Verma, G.P.-I assisted by Mr. dated 13.02.2013, is fit to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel, Mr. K.M. Verma, G.P.-I assisted by Mr. Lalan Prasad, Advocate fairly submits that though on earlier occasions, two counter-affidavits have been filed in which the respondents have justified the impugned order as per the stand taken by the Department but in view of the clarification short by this Hon’ble Court vide Orders dated 30.03.2015 and 15.04.2015, specific clarification was short for from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, regarding letter No. 4379 dated 16.07.2008, which had substantially been substantiated by the Department’s letter No. 2262(S) dated 27.03.2012. Learned counsel for the State in his candid submission submits to the Court that the respondents are bound to comply the orders of this Court in view of clarifications given by the respondent No. 7. 7. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and having given a careful consideration to the clarifications given by the State Government in its letter dated 16.07.2008, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner deserves consideration. The law with regard to employment on compassionate ground for dependents of the deceased employee is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain & Ors. vrs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 has held as under:- “9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of MGB Gramin Bank Vrs. Chakrawarti Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 has held as under:- “6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Chakrawarti Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 has held as under:- “6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitled the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.” In case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493 , while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:- “13. …..... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread-earner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family — this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. …..... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread-earner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family — this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread-earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread-earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.” This view has been taken into consideration in the case of Canara Bank & Anr vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 . (Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance). 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and the judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 13.02.2013 as contained in Memo No. 15(A)/Estt., is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. 9. Needless to say that in view of the quashment of the order dated 13.02.2013, the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and issue letter of appointment to him within a period of one-and-half months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.