JUDGMENT : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “i) For direction to the Respondent No. 5 i.e. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar who is the chairman of District Compassionate Appointment Committee to make compassionate appointment to the Petitioner against which the detailed representation dt. 10.4.2023 alongwith all required documents (Annexure 5 series) has been filed before the Resp. No. 8 on account of death of his father namely Late Dipendra Kumar Mishra on dt. 28.8.2020 (Annexure -1) in proper compliance of Letter dt. 26.7.2022 (Annexure 4) issued by Resp. No. 6 i.e. The Establishment Deputy Collector, Deoghar. ii) For grant of such other relief(s) for which the Petitioner would be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case set forth in the writ application.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner namely, Dipendra Kumar Mishra was working on Class IV post as peon in Road Construction Department, Deoghar who died in harness on 28.08.2020 leaving behind his wife namely Pratul Devi and two sons i.e. the petitioner and one Rahul Shandilya. The death certificate of the father of the petitioner has been placed on record. 4. The petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 25.03.2022 before the respondent no. 8 and the required application in proper format was filed on 23.04.2022. The respondent no. 6 found certain discrepancies in the name of the father of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the father’s name of the petitioner was written as Sudhir Mishra or Sudhir Kumar Mishra on the educational certificate whereas it was written as Dipendra Kumar Mishra on other certificates. Consequently, the documents were returned vide letter no. 452 dated 26.07.2022 to the respondent no. 7 for proper enquiries and recommendation for age relaxation for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground who, in turn, forwarded the same to respondent no. 8 for correction of documents. 5. The petitioner again submitted the entire documents in details on 10.04.2023 before the respondent no. 8 along with all the supporting documents. However, on account of discrepancies in connection with the name of his father in the educational qualification certificate, the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was not being considered. 6. 5. The petitioner again submitted the entire documents in details on 10.04.2023 before the respondent no. 8 along with all the supporting documents. However, on account of discrepancies in connection with the name of his father in the educational qualification certificate, the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was not being considered. 6. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the respondent no. 8 on 05.07.2023 stating that his late father namely Dipendra Kumar Mishra had already made an affidavit about his name vide Sl. No. 81 dated 15.12.1995 and submitted the original before the authority concerned in which it was clearly stated that he was known by both the names Sudhir Kumar Mishra and Dipendra Kumar Mishra and such information was also published in the newspaper as public notice on 23.11.1998. 7. It is further not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner namely Pratul Devi is getting family pension of her late husband namely, Dipendra Kumar Mishra. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that late father of the petitioner had disclosed his alias name before the department as back as in the year 1995/1998 during his lifetime and no objection was ever raised by the respondents in that connection and consequently, the name of the father of the petitioner, as is reflecting in the educational qualification certificates with the alias name of late father of the petitioner, cannot be a ground for not processing the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. It has also been brought on record that identity of the mother of the petitioner is not in dispute as she is receiving family pension. 9. The argument of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had disclosed his alias name way back in the year 1995/1998 was recorded in order dated 28.02.2024 and the respondents, upon verification of their record, have filed a supplementary counter-affidavit stating that after much efforts, the application and affidavit of the father of the petitioner has been found in the office records. The application is dated 02.12.1998 and affidavit is dated 15.12.1995. The application is dated 02.12.1998 and affidavit is dated 15.12.1995. A stand has been taken in the supplementary counter-affidavit that no corresponding entry was made in the service record which was the reason for the objection being raised in connection with mismatch in the name of the father of the petitioner as recorded in the documents relating to his educational qualification. 10. Upon perusal of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 11.03.2024, there is no doubt that late father of the petitioner had disclosed his alias name as Sudhir Kumar Mishra before the respondents, though no corresponding entry was made in the service records. 11. At this, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even if the identity of the petitioner is taken to be the son of the deceased employee, then also the respondent no. 5 has to consider the materials to assess the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and therefore, the matter be remitted to the respondent no. 5 for further consideration. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the father of the petitioner namely Dipendra Kumar Mishra had filed an application dated 02.12.1998 and affidavit vide Sl. No. 81 dated 15.12.1995 with the respondents disclosing his alias name Sudhir Kumar Mishra. However, no corresponding addition regarding alias name was made in the service records of the Dipendra Kumar Mishra during his life time. However, the identity of the mother of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents. The mother of the petitioner is getting family pension. This Court also finds that a report dated 04.03.2022 with regard to police verification of the petitioner has also been brought on record by the respondents and the identity is in favour of the petitioner. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the identity of the petitioner as son of Partul Devi is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that Partul Devi is getting pension being the wife of ex-employee, Dipendra Kumar Mishra, the identity of the petitioner that he is son of Partul Devi and Dipendra Kumar Mishra cannot be disputed. Moreover, the mention of the alias name of the father of the petitioner in the educational qualification is well explained and it is admitted by the respondents that the ex-employee vide aforesaid affidavit and application way back in the year 1995/1998 had informed the respondents about his alias name and it is the alias name Sudhir Kumar Mishra and/or Sudhir Mishra which has been mentioned in the educational certificates of the petitioner. Under the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be declined on account of any dispute regarding his identity as son of Dipendra Kumar Mishra alias Sudhir Kumar Mishra /Sudhir Mishra. 14. So far other parameters for grant of compassionate appointment is concerned they are required to be examined by the respondent no. 5 as per the applicable circulars/guidelines etc and for that purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent no. 5 along with the writ records and a representation within a period of one month. 15. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no. 5 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner regarding grant of compassionate appointment and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of such representation. The petitioner will be entitled for an opportunity of hearing by the respondent no. 5 or the District Establishment Committee, as the case may be. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner through speed post. 16. If the petitioner is found entitled for compassionate appointment as per the reasoned order, the needful be done within a period of one month from the date of the reasoned order. 17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.