JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Review No. 90 of 2017 by which the review petition filed against the order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013, was dismissed and the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2 was directed to consider the claim for appointment of the writ petitioner's son. 2. It requires to refer the background of the case which reads as hereunder: A writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013 was preferred by the writ petitioner for quashing of the order dated 11.07.2012 as contained in Memo No. 534 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Daltonganj by which the claim for appointment of the son of the deceased employee, namely, late Shyam Bihari Ram, who died in harness on 20.03.2004 serving as Path Mazdoor (Road Labour) in the Road Construction Department, was rejected. The writ Court had passed an order on 03.12.2013 and quashed the order dated 11.07.2012 by which the claim for appointment of the son of the deceased employee was rejected with a direction to consider the case of the son of the deceased employee on compassionate ground in accordance with law, afresh. The State of Jharkhand had preferred an intra-court appeal against the order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013. The co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.04.2015 dismissed the appeal with a direction upon the respondent to consider the case for appointment on compassionate appointment in accordance with law, afresh, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. The case of the writ petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Committee in pursuance to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014. The case of the writ petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Committee in pursuance to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar vide order dated 03.06.2015 on the ground that the father of the writ petitioner since was appointed under the work charged establishment and as per the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2005) 3 JLJR 38 , the dependant of the work charged employee who died in harness, will not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The writ petitioner, in the meanwhile, had filed a contempt application being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 644 of 2014 in which the order of rejection dated 11.07.2012 had not been accepted by the Contempt Court and as such the State-appellant preferred a civil review application being Civil Review No. 90 of 2017 for review of the order dated 03.12.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013 (Kiran Kunwar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others) inter-alia on the ground that the father of the dependant since was working under the work charged establishment, as such, the dependant of the deceased employee will not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and to that effect the salary slip for the month from December, 1999 to January, 2001 has been brought on record in order to establish the fact that the father of the dependant, namely, Shyam Bihari Ram was working under the work charged establishment but the aforesaid review was dismissed against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. 3. Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the impugned order passed in Civil Review No. 90 of 2017 is not sustainable in the eye of law because the Review Court ought to have considered the fact that the dependant of the deceased employee, if was appointed under the work charged establishment, will not be entitled for compassionate appointment in view of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (supra) but the same has not been considered and as such, according to them, when the Full Bench of this Court has laid down a ratio not to provide appointment to the dependant of the deceased employee who have been appointed under the work charged establishment, no appointment can be provided to such dependant. Non-consideration of this aspect of the matter renders the impugned order with fault of illegality and hence the impugned order passed in Civil Review No. 90 of 2017 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, Mr. Hasnain Waris, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent/writ petitioner has submitted that the State-appellant has not placed correct facts either before the Review Court or before this Court because, according to him, the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Shyam Bihari Ram had been appointed way back on 22.02.1988 by the order of the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Ranchi on compassionate ground after the death of his father, namely, Kesar Ram who was working as Path Mazdoor (Road Labour). According to him, the appointment provided to the dependant of the deceased employee vide office order dated 22.02.1988 was on compassionate ground, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the father of the dependant was working under the work charged establishment because, as per the Circular, appointment on compassionate ground can only be given under Class-III and IV posts and no appointment on compassionate ground can be provided under the work charged establishment, therefore, the submission made on behalf of the appellant-State that the father of the dependant of the deceased employee was working under the work charged establishment, is incorrect. He, further, submits that although the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected on 11.07.2012 in pursuance to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1066 of 2012 but the said order having been questioned by the writ petitioner by filing writ being W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013 against which the letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014 had been preferred where the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order upon the State-respondent to pass an order in accordance with law afresh, in pursuance thereto, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.04.2015 but the said order has not been accepted by the Contempt Court and in pursuance to the proceeding initiated by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, the respondent State had passed an order on 12.06.2019 appointing the son of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground and at present the son of the writ petitioner is working in pursuance to the order of appointment dated 12.06.2019, therefore, according to him, the instant appeal is not fit to be entertained by this Court. 5. The matter had been heard on 21.09.2020 and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned associate counsel to learned Advocate General had sought adjournment to produce certain documents and to seek further instruction in the matter. In pursuance thereto, following documents have been mailed by supplying copy of the same to the learned counsel for the respondent: (i) The appointment letter dated 22.02.1988 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Ranchi. (ii) The order dated 11.07.2012 passed in terms of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1066 of 2012 by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Daltonganj. (iii) Minutes of meeting of the District Compassionate Committee dated 20.05.2019. (iv) Office order dated 12.06.2019. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considering the documents available on record, has found from scrutiny of the record the following admitted facts which are being referred hereunder as: It is evident from the order dated 22.02.1988 whereby and whereunder the deceased husband of the writ petitioner, namely, late Shyam Bihari Ram, had been provided appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father, namely, late Kesar Ram, who was working as Path Mazdoor (Road Labour) under the Road Division, Daltonganj (South Latehar). The deceased employee, namely, Shyam Bihari Ram, died in harness on 20.03.2004 leaving behind his wife, the writ petitioner herein, one married daughter, three unmarried daughters and two sons. The widow of the deceased employee filed a representation on 12.02.2001 before the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer praying therein for disbursement of family pension, death-cum-retiral benefits payable to her deceased husband, arrears of salary of her husband for the period from March, 2002 to 20th March, 2004 and to provide appointment on compassionate ground. When the claim was not considered, one writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1066 of 2006 was filed inter-alia praying therein for disbursement of the post-retiral dues and also to consider the case of her son for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent authorities to take decision in accordance with law. In pursuance thereto, the case of the son of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered but was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2012. The aforesaid order of rejection was questioned by the writ petitioner by filing another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013 and a Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition and order of rejection dated 11.07.2012 was quashed with a further direction upon the authority to consider the case of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground within the stipulated period. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent-State of Jharkhand, the appellant herein, by preferring intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014. The coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2015 had dismissed the appeal by making an observation that there is direction only to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment of his son in accordance with law afresh and pass an order for consideration of the case of the original petitioner in accordance with law afresh within the stipulated period. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner had filed contempt case to initiate a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act being Contempt Case No. 644 of 2014 wherein the State-appellant had filed show case showing therein the order of rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2015 and a prayer was made that since an order had already been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in the capacity of Chairman of the District Compassionate Committee, Latehar, therefore, the contempt proceeding may be dropped but the Contempt Court had not accepted the explanation furnished in the show cause and passed an order for compliance of the Court’s order passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013. 8. The appellant-State, thereafter filed a review application being Civil Review No. 90 of 2017 for review of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013 but vide order dated 01.10.2018 the aforesaid review application was dismissed against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 9. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand has conceded to the effect that since the son of the writ petitioner has already been provided appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 12.06.2019, as such, the instant intra court appeal may be disposed of by making observation that this order may not be treated as precedence as the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (supra) has laid down a ratio that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided to the dependant of such employee who had been appointed under the work charged establishment and died in harness while working under the work charged establishment and according to him, since the husband of the writ petitioner was working under the work charged establishment, her son will not be entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground and if no such observation “not to treat this order as precedence in the future cases” would be made, ultimately the Full Bench judgment of this Court would be frustrated and so many claims may be made before the State of Jharkhand. 10. We, after considering the aforesaid argument, thought it proper to deal with the issue as to whether such observation is fit to be made in this appeal or not. 10. We, after considering the aforesaid argument, thought it proper to deal with the issue as to whether such observation is fit to be made in this appeal or not. For this, we have decided to go into the root of the issue in order to scrutinize as to whether the appointment of the husband of the writ petitioner was under the work charged establishment or not? 11. We have already discussed about the order of appointment letter dated 22.02.1988 whereby and whereunder the husband of the writ petitioner had been provided appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father, namely, Kesar Ram, who was working as Path Mazdoor under the Road Division, Daltonganj (South), Latehar in the pay scale of 350-5-480. 12. The aforesaid order further reflects that the appointment on compassionate ground of the husband of the writ petitioner had been considered in the meeting of the establishment held on 18.12.1987. We have also gone through the scheme floated by the erstwhile State of Bihar pertaining to appointment on compassionate ground dated 30.11.1984 wherefrom it is evident that the decision by way of the scheme has been taken to consider and provide appointment on compassionate ground to the dependant of the deceased employee under the vacant post of Class-III and IV, as the case may be, subject to suitability and eligibility. Meaning thereby, the appointment on compassionate ground is to be made under the regular establishment because the scheme discloses that appointment on compassionate ground is to be made under Class-III and IV posts. Thus, if the appointment has been decided to be made on compassionate ground under Class-III and IV posts, the same without any doubt would be under the regular establishment and not under the work charged establishment. 13. We, on the basis of the aforesaid circular and after going through the office order dated 22.02.1988, are of the view that, since the appointment of the husband of the writ petitioner was made on compassionate ground by a decision of the establishment committee dated 18.12.1987, it will be said to be under the regular establishment and not under the work charged establishment. Further, in the review petition filed by the appellant-State of Jharkhand, the documents in order to establish that the husband of the writ petitioner was working under the work charged establishment are merely the pay bills of certain years which have not been found to be satisfactory by the review Court, therefore, the review application has been dismissed with an observation that save and except the aforesaid document, i.e. pay bill for few months, and since no appointment letter have been annexed before the review Court, this Court is of the view that the appointment made in favour of the husband of the petitioner cannot be said to be under the work charged establishment. Since, according to us, the appointment by way of order dated 22.02.1988 cannot be said to be made under the work charged establishment, therefore, such precedent as has been prayed by the learned Advocate General not to treat this order as precedence, would be nothing but an irrelevant one. 14. This Court, has put specific query to the learned Advocate General as to when a fresh decision had already been taken by the authority concerned on 12.06.2019 then what is the reason to pursue the instant appeal. Upon this, it has been submitted that the said order has been made subject to the outcome of the instant appeal, therefore, the same is being pursued by the State of Jharkhand. 15. Upon this, it has been submitted that the said order has been made subject to the outcome of the instant appeal, therefore, the same is being pursued by the State of Jharkhand. 15. We, after going through the factual aspect as also the admitted fact in the instant case, are of the view that the order passed by the writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2013 has already been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing the appeal being L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014 vide order dated 17.04.2015 but however, in pursuance to the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court the claim of the son of the writ petitioner had been rejected vide order dated 17.04.2015, the contempt court had not accepted the aforesaid order and in pursuance thereto, a fresh order had been passed on 12.06.2019, however, the same has been made subject to the outcome of the L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014 but the question is that as to whether the action of the appellant-State in preferring the civil review being Civil Review No. 90 of 2017 against the order passed by the writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2019 will be said to be proper after the State has lost in intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014 disposed of on 17.04.2015 since the review has been filed after dismissal of the aforesaid letters patent appeal? 16. It is settled position of law that once an original court has passed an order and the same has been questioned at a higher forum and that forum has passed an order on merit, the order passed by the original court will merge into the order passed by the higher forum on the principle of merger. Therefore, the State ought to have preferred review of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014 disposed of on 17.04.2015 or to move before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but both the processes have not been resorted to rather review petition being Civil Review No. 90 of 2017 has been filed against the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 178 of 2019 after dismissal of the letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No. 53 of 2014. However, the said matter is not before us so we are not passing any order on merit to that effect. However, since the learned Advocate General has raised an issue, we, for the purpose of clarifying the situation, deem it fit and proper to observe as above. 17. We, further, are of the view that since we are making an observation about maintainability of the civil review and the main ground agitated by the appellant to question the order passed by the review Court that the appointment of the husband of the writ petitioner since was made under the work charged establishment, the same cannot be said to be proper rather it will be in the teeth of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (supra) wherein it has already been held as above as not worth consideration. According to us, the State-appellant ought to have contested the contempt application instead of passing a fresh order on 12.06.2019. Since the fresh order had already been passed by the authority, now the authority cannot be allowed to turn around and pursue the instant intra-court appeal mainly on the ground that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided which has not been found to be correct by this Court after consideration of the order of appointment dated 22.02.1988 comparing with the circular applicable for appointment on compassionate ground dated 30.11.1984 as per the discussion made hereinabove to the effect that when the appointment on compassionate ground has been decided to be made against Class-III and IV posts the appointment, as has been submitted by the learned Advocate General, in favour of the husband of the writ petitioner in place of his father who was working in Road Division, the same cannot be accepted. If it will be accepted it will be contrary to the Circular dated 30.11.1984 and further the appointment letter of the father of the deceased employee, namely, late Kesar Ram has never been produced in any of the proceeding. 18. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the instant appeal lacks merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. 19. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. 20. 18. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the instant appeal lacks merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. 19. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. 20. Office is directed to keep the documents produced by the learned counsel for the State as mentioned in paragraph-5 of the judgment, on record.