JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since the identical issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Amongst other prayers, the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 1146/2016, prays for quashing the letter no. 1205 dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure-7) issued by Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, whereby the application for compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2 (son of petitioner no. 1) has been rejected on the ground that the father of petitioner no. 2, namely, Rewati Raman Jha has expired much prior to issuance of the regularization order dated 1.9.2014, i.e. on 30.7.2014. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 1312 of 2018 and W.P. (S) No. 2449 of 2018 have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases and grant them appointment on compassionate ground, inter alia, on the ground that their fathers have expired on 4.7.2014 and 11.07.2014 respectively, but prior to that they had already been absorbed in the services of the respondent-State vide Regularization Notifications. 4. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the individual writ petitions are as follows:- W.P. (S) No. 1146/2016 It is the case of petitioner no. 2 that his father, namely, Rewati Raman Jha was appointed as Helper in the Regional Workshop, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Ranchi on 16.9.1981. The matter of regularization of services of Rewati Raman Jha (Deceased Employee), along-with other similarly situated employees went up-to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 337 of 2001, B.S.R.T.C. Ret. Deceased EMP. S. Morcha vs. State of Bihar and Another with Civil Appeal No. 7290 of 1994, wherein an order dated 24th August, 2011 was passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, with the following specific observations:- “It is stated and submitted that all the employees have been getting regular salaries and up (Sic) February, 2011, there is no (Sic) due. We read the aforesaid paragraphs to mean that all the employees of the Corporation, who were allocated to the State of Jharkhand, have been duly absorbed in the service of the State Government there.” In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the father of the petitioner no. 2 got regularized/absorbed in class IV category in the post of Helper vide office order contained in memo no. 105 dated 1.9.2014 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. 2 got regularized/absorbed in class IV category in the post of Helper vide office order contained in memo no. 105 dated 1.9.2014 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. The name of late Rewati Raman Jha stands at serial no. 129 (Annexure-3). However, prior to issuance of Regularization Notification, said Rewati Raman Jha (father of petitioner no. 2) expired on 30.7.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 made several representations (Annexure-5 series) for consideration of case of her son i.e. petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment, but the said request was declined by the impugned order no. 1205 dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure-7) stating that no case for compassionate appointment is made out because the father of petitioner no. 2, namely, Rewati Raman Jha has expired on 30.07.2014 much prior to issuance of the regularization order dated 1.9.2014. W.P. (S) No. 1312 of 2018 Similarly in the present case, the father of petitioner namely, late Sagar Kandil was appointed to the post of peon in the then Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. He joined the said post of Helper at Hazaribagh Depot, Ranchi Division. On 30.6.2004, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation got dissolved in the State of Jharkhand and an Arbitration Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad was constituted, to point out liabilities and responsibilities between Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and the State of Jharkhand. On 12.8.2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the report of the said Arbitration Committee in toto in Civil Appeal No. 7290/94. Thereafter, on 24.8.2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order in the said Civil Appeal No. 7290/1994 with W.P. (C) No. 337/2001 that all the employees who have been allocated the State of Jharkhand be absorbed in the service of the Jharkhand State Government. Accordingly on 7.6.2013, a Gazette No. 362 dated 7.6.2013 (Annexure-1) was issued by which the services of the petitioner’s father has been regularized. His name appears at serial no. 7 in Appendix-D. In the meantime on 04.7.2014, Petitioner’s father died. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed a representation dated 19.1.2018 requesting for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment but the same went into vein. W.P. (S) No. 2449/2018 Similarly, the father of petitioner, late Md. Aslam was appointed to the post of Helper in the then Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. He joined the said post of Helper at Hazaribagh Depot, Ranchi Division on 17.2.1974. W.P. (S) No. 2449/2018 Similarly, the father of petitioner, late Md. Aslam was appointed to the post of Helper in the then Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. He joined the said post of Helper at Hazaribagh Depot, Ranchi Division on 17.2.1974. On 25.05.2013, the petitioner’s father died. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation before the authorities concerned for consideration of his case but no heed was paid to his request. Finding no other way, these petitioners have knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for getting relief. 5. Mr. Vishwanath Roy and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners jointly submit that these petitioners and other similarly situated employees have fought a protracted litigation towards claim of their absorption and many of them, during the process of regularization, have either superannuated or died. Therefore, Regularization Notification has been made effective with retrospective date, i.e. w.e.f. 24th August, 2011. The Resolution dated 14th February 2015 published in Extraordinary Gazette of Government of Jharkhand dated 18th February 2015 (Annexure-2 in WP No. 2449/2018) leaves no room of doubt that employees who had either retired or died between the date of resolution regarding absorption i.e. 14th February 2015 and 24th August 2011 would also be treated as absorbed w.e.f. 24th August, 2011. Learned counsel further argues that as per clause 4 of this resolution dated 14th February, 2015, provisions of Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code has been relaxed. Also educational qualification etc. has been completely relaxed in the following words “Ukta Kandika 3 Mein Ankit 248 Karmiyon Ke Sambandh Mein Jharkhand Sewa Sanghita Ke Niyam 58 Ko Sithil Karne, Sakchinik Yogta Awam Umar Seema Rajya Sarkar Ke Antargat Niyukti (Samayogan) Hetu Aawaksakyata Anusaar Shraant Karne Ka Bhi Nirnaya Liya Gaya Hai.” Learned counsel further argues that as per clause 7 of said Resolution dated 14th February, 2015, (Annexure-2 in W.P. No. 2449/2018, page no. 68), after absorption, the fathers of respective petitioners and other similarly situated employees shall be given the same benefits in the matter of pay and allowances and other benefits as that of a State Government Employee. This clause, being very relevant is quoted herein-below:- “.......Uprotkt Kandika 5 Mein Ullekhit Karmiyo Ki Niyukti (Samayogan) Ke Upraant Sambandhit Karmiyo Ko Rajya Sarkar Ke Karmiyon Ki Bhaati Wetan Bhatte Awam Anya Swidhaya Dinaank 24 August 2011 Ke Prabhaw Se De Hoga.” 6. This clause, being very relevant is quoted herein-below:- “.......Uprotkt Kandika 5 Mein Ullekhit Karmiyo Ki Niyukti (Samayogan) Ke Upraant Sambandhit Karmiyo Ko Rajya Sarkar Ke Karmiyon Ki Bhaati Wetan Bhatte Awam Anya Swidhaya Dinaank 24 August 2011 Ke Prabhaw Se De Hoga.” 6. Learned counsel further argues that in the light of the aforesaid provisions, i.e. clause 4 and 7 of the Regularization Notification dated 18th February, 2015, it is amply clear that all the employees were regularized with retrospective date i.e. from 24th August, 2011. At that time, the respective fathers of these petitioners were very much alive. Their deaths occurred much after 24th August, 2011. As per clause-7, these absorbed employees are treated as a State Government Employees and are entitled to get all the benefits in the matter of pay, allowances including compassionate appointment at par with that of a State Government Employees. Since Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code has been relaxed and also since these regularization notifications have been made only for those employees who, during the course of absorption have either died or superannuated, question of their joining does not arises. Therefore, objection of the State-respondents that the petitioners are not entitled for compassionate appointment because their respective fathers have died before joining the post is wholly a misconceived argument and it is not legally tenable for the respondents to take a plea that person like the fathers of these petitioners were the employees of B.S.R.T.C. Learned counsel also argues that Clause-7 of Regularization Notification dated 18th February, 2015, quoted above, leaves no room of doubt that after 24th August, 2011 all the absorbed employees, who were allocated the cadre of Jharkhand and that too in compliance to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, shall be treated at par with the State Govt. employees. The argument of the State that the petitioners are not coming within the policy decision of the State as the petitioners’ fathers, though absorbed but not confirmed, and no permanence was given to them, has no leg to stand, because clause-7 of the Regularization Notification leaves no room of doubt that after 24th August, 2011, all the absorbed employees shall be treated at par with State Government Employees. Thus, if State Government Employees are given the status of confirmation/permanence, by legal fiction, automatically these absorbed employees also acquire status of permanence/ confirmation. 7. Thus, if State Government Employees are given the status of confirmation/permanence, by legal fiction, automatically these absorbed employees also acquire status of permanence/ confirmation. 7. Learned counsel further argues that in fact, after the death of the deceased employee, the mother of the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 1312 of 2018 was also paid the difference of salary from the date of absorption i.e. 24.8.2011 to the date of death i.e. 4.7.2014 total amounting to Rs. 2,26,948/- vide cheque no. 565210 dated 22-12-2017, as will appear from Annexure-5 in W.P. (S) No. 1312/2018 and thus, for the purpose of grant of arrears of salary, the respondents-State treats the petitioner’s father as a State Government Employee, but argues that for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment, he is still the employee of B.S.R.T.C. This argument is wholly misconceived and contravenes the provisions of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the argument of grant of status of permanence/confirmation is never a ground taken in the impugned order dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure-7 to the writ application no. 1146/2016) and even the counter-affidavit filed does not contain this argument. Thus, a public order is to be read according to the language/ground stated therein. No further stand can be taken by way of supplementary affidavit. This issue has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment delivered in case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 851 . 8. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (i) Prem Ram vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam and Others, (2015) 3 JLJR 475 (ii) State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Agriculture vs. Kuldeep Thakur, (2017) 3 All LJ 97 (iii) K. Prasanna Kumar vs. Superintending Enginner (Operation), APCPDCL and Another, (2009) 2 SLR 631 (iv) Neelam Rani vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 3 SLR 288 9. Per contra, counter-affidavits have been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in the gazette notification dated 19.07.2016 of the Jharkhand Govt. it has been mentioned in para 6(vii) that the employee, who has been adjusted in Govt. Per contra, counter-affidavits have been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in the gazette notification dated 19.07.2016 of the Jharkhand Govt. it has been mentioned in para 6(vii) that the employee, who has been adjusted in Govt. Service of Jharkhand before 24.08.2011 and has not joined or has died earlier to his joining, such employee will be paid their benefits by the District Transport Officer-cum-Divisional Manager Incharge of the district concerned, where he was posted and had worked last as an employee. Learned counsel further argues that arrears due towards the salary of the respective fathers of the petitioners have already been paid by the respondent-authorities through different cheques. The respective fathers of the present petitioners died before joining their services and as such, the present petitioners cannot claim their appointment on compassionate ground. The fathers of the petitioners never joined the services of the respondent-authorities and therefore, the claim of the petitioners for their appointment has no basis in view of the resolution of the Govt. The fathers of the petitioners never served to the permanent post of peon/orderly under the respondent- authorities as they died prior to issuance of adjustment order. Learned counsel lastly submits that in view of the facts enumerated hereinabove, there is no merit or substance in the present writ petitions and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Hon’ble Court. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cases of the petitioners need consideration. The core issue which is to be decided by this Court is as to whether the fathers of the present petitioners can be treated as absorbed w.e.f. 24.08.2011 and whether upon their death, their legal heirs (petitioners herein) are entitled for compassionate appointment, as per the government scheme/prevailing rules on the date of consideration? 11. From a bare perusal of Clause-7 of the Regularization Notification dated 18.02.2015, it leaves no room of doubt that after 24th August, 2011 all the absorbed employees, who were allocated the cadre of Jharkhand and that too in compliance to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, shall be treated at par with the State Govt. employees. Thus, as in State Govt. employees. Thus, as in State Govt. employees are given the status of confirmation/permanence by legal fiction, similarly these absorbed employees (deceased fathers of the present petitioners) also automatically acquire the status of confirmation/permanence. No reasons have been assigned for non-consideration of the cases of the present petitioners (legal heirs of the deceased employees) for their appointment on compassionate ground and the State has come-out with the reasons for non-consideration in their counter-affidavit. This issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 , wherein it is clearly held that reasons cannot be supplemented by way of counter-affidavit. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Union of India (supra). 12. So far as issue of regularization of the deceased fathers of the present petitioners are concerned, the same is also no more res-integra in view of catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also that of the several High Courts. Once the consideration of cases of the fathers of the petitioners were under progress, and a list had already been forwarded and if the State Government had concluded the same on time, on the strength of said decision, it would have taken a decision with regard to the claim of the present petitioners. Admittedly, in all the cases the deceased employees died after 24.08.2011 i.e. the date from which the regularization notification has been made operative. The said regularization notification admittedly leaves no room of doubt that employees who were either retired or died prior to their absorption would also be considered for absorption w.e.f. 24.08.2011. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prem Ram vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam and Others, (2015) 3 JCR 37 has held thus: “9............since the tenure of the person who was claiming such benefit had to be regularized, then in that event the Apex Court in view of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India having been violated, ruled that such benefit would also accrue to the said claimant.........” 13. The similar view had been taken by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Agriculture vs. Kuldeep Thakur, (2017) 3 All LJ 97, has held as under: “11........In our opinion, the fortuitous circumstance of the death of the father of the respondent petitioner does not absolve the State Government of its obligation to consider the claim of regularization of the father of the respondent petitioner. There can be a case where the consideration has been made and the regularization accepted but before the order reaches a man dies or his death takes place in the near vicinity or simultaneously with regularization. In this situation, the claim of regularization of the deceased employee does not remain an option to be ignored by the State Government. The State Government or its authorities are under an obligation to consider such a claim and to award any consequential benefits if the process has been set into motion as has happened in the present case. Once the father of the respondent petitioner is found entitled to be regularized as on the date of the Government order dated 13.08.2015, on which date he was admittedly alive, then in that event the claim of the respondent petitioner can also be considered. 12. The consideration of the right of being regularized by operation of law while in force had already accrued in favour of the father of the respondent petitioner and his death in between further gave rise to the expected consequential claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, provided his father's services were declared regular. The consideration of such right, whether had accrued, does not get eclipsed nor could it be abandoned. If the consideration results in the services of the petitioner's father becoming regular, then the Full Bench judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra) would not be an impediment for the respondent petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment. The appellant State and its authorities therefore cannot escape this exercise and defeat the right of consideration by their inaction or the absence of timely and prompt action. Such exercise of consideration will not evaporate because of untimely death which is a fortuitous circumstance so as to result in any advantage to the State. 15. The appellant State and its authorities therefore cannot escape this exercise and defeat the right of consideration by their inaction or the absence of timely and prompt action. Such exercise of consideration will not evaporate because of untimely death which is a fortuitous circumstance so as to result in any advantage to the State. 15. Consequently, we modify the judgment dated 22.11.2016 to the extent that it shall be open to the appellant State to consider the status of regularization of the father of the respondent and then proceed to take an appropriate decision with regard to the claim of the respondent petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the observations made hereinabove.” In case of K. Prasanna Kumar vs. Superintending Engineer (Operation), APCPDCL and Another, (2009) 2 SLR 631 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held as under: “4. It is a matter of record that Madaiah ultimately came to be appointed as a Junior Lineman on 5.8.2002 and that the various persons engaged along with him were absorbed on regular basis on 12.1.2005. One month before the date of such regularization of other employees, Madaiah died, while repairing a transformer of the respondent-company. The employment on compassionate grounds is a scheme evolved to ensure that the dependants of an employee do not face penury, on account of his untimely death. Over the years, several instances of abuse and misapplication of die scheme have been noticed. If the scheme is to serve its above mentioned purpose, the present case provides an ideal instance. In all other cases, the benefit is extended, irrespective of the fact whether the employee died, during the course of discharging the duties or not. Here is a case, where the employee died, while discharging his duties.” 14. Also for the reasons that Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code has duly been relaxed and also since these regularization notifications have been made only for those employees who, during the course of absorption, either died or superannuated, question of their joining does not arise. The, objection raised by the respondent-State that petitioners are not entitled for compassionate appointment since there is no scheme for regularization and no appointment can be given against the policy decision and also because of the fact that their respective fathers have died before absorption, is wholly a misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. The, objection raised by the respondent-State that petitioners are not entitled for compassionate appointment since there is no scheme for regularization and no appointment can be given against the policy decision and also because of the fact that their respective fathers have died before absorption, is wholly a misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. The respondents have considered and treated the petitioners’ respective fathers as State Govt. employees for grant of arrears of salary but for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment, they are treating them as employees of B.S.R.T.C. which is in complete contravention of the provisions of equality and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 15. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent-State is direct to consider the cases of the present petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the aforesaid observations, for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The fathers of the petitioners died between the notification dated 24.08.11 and 14.02.15 and specifically it was mentioned in the said notifications that the employees, who died or retired between absorption notification dated 24.08.11 and 14.02.15, would be treated as absorbed w.e.f. 24.08.2011. (ii) As per Clause-4 of the of the resolution dated 14.02.2015, provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code has been intentionally relaxed and also educational qualification, etc. has been completely relaxed. (iii) As per Clause-7 of the said resolution, after absorption, the fathers of these petitioners and other similarly situated employees would be given the same benefits of pay and allowance as that of a State Govt. employee. (iv) The plea of the respondent-State that there is no scheme to appointment present petitioners, as their respective fathers had died before joining their services and as such, were never absorbed, is totally misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. The contention of the respondent-State that since fathers of the present petitioners were not regularized and as such, no direction for consideration of appointment on compassionate basis could be issued is also not tenable and acceptable to this Court. The respondent-State and its authorities cannot escape and defeat the right of consideration by their inaction or the absence of timely and prompt action. Such exercise of consideration will not evaporate because of untimely death which is a fortuitous circumstance so as to result in any advantage to the State. 16. The respondent-State and its authorities cannot escape and defeat the right of consideration by their inaction or the absence of timely and prompt action. Such exercise of consideration will not evaporate because of untimely death which is a fortuitous circumstance so as to result in any advantage to the State. 16. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the impugned letter no. 1205 dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure-7 to the W.P. (S) No. 1146/2016) issued by Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, whereby the application for compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2 (son of petitioner no. 1) has been rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside. I hereby direct the respondent- authorities to consider the cases of the present petitioners for compassionate appointment treating the fathers of the petitioners as regular employees of the State Govt. 17. Let a decision to that effect be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if there is no other legal impediments, the petitioners be appointed within a further period of four weeks. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.