WRIT PETITION 3114 of 2017 on 20 April 1982

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature forcompassionate appointment, as his father died in harness whileworking as a jeep driver under the Road ConstructionDepartment, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father started his career as a jeep driver on20.04.1982 under the work charge establishment of the RoadConstruction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, and diedwhile he was posted in the office of the Executive Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project Division, Gulzarbagh, Road Divisionunder the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar,Patna, on 29.07.2007. Counsel further submits that the petitionermade an application for compassionate appointment on23.09.2009. He submits that, despite repeated representations, thepetitioner’s case was not considered for appointment oncompassionate ground. Counsel further submits that it is wellestablished that those persons who have worked as work-chargedemployees for 10 years or more are entitled to regularization.Counsel further submits that, being a work-charged employee,the petitioner's mother is receiving a family pension along withother benefits.

4. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied ona judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Dilip KumarBhattacharya v. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 (1) BLJR 139.Counsel further submits that in the said case, this Hon’ble Courtdirected the State Government to consider the case of thepetitioner for compassionate appointment. Counsel furthersubmits that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered from thecase of Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya (supra).

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,submits that the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointmentis not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner is not a government employee. Moreover, it is admitted that the cause ofaction for the petitioner has arisen upon the death of his father on29.07.2007, whereas he has come before this Hon’ble Court inthe year 2017, i.e., after a lapse of about 10 years, and such delayhas not been explained in the writ petition.

6. Counsel further submits that compassionateappointment is not a matter of right rather, it is provided only tomitigate the hardship caused to the family of the deceasedemployee due to the sudden demise of the bread earner, and it isnot a mode of regular appointment. Counsel further submits thatthe mere death of an employee does not entitle the family tocompassionate appointment unless there is financial distress inthe family.

7. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Courtthat, although the petitioner’s father died in the year 2007 and thecause of action arose at that time, the petitioner admittedlymoved before this Court after a lapse of 10 years, and this delayhas not been explained anywhere in the writ petition. Moreover,the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, i.e., Dilip KumarBhattacharya (supra) shall not help the petitioner in any way dueto the reason that in that case, the petitioner was initially a work-charged employee, but his services were subsequentlyregularized and made permanent and only due to this reason that Aman Kumar/- U

his services was made permanent, this Hon’ble Court decided thecase in his favour.

8. Here in the present case, the services of thepetitioner’s father were not regularized, admittedly, he remaineda work-charged employee. Although there is merit in theargument that completion of 10 years in a work-chargedestablishment may entitle an employee to regularization, thisCourt is not entering into that issue. This Court is only concernedwith the settled position that compassionate appointment is not amode of regular appointment, rather, its object is to mitigate thehardship caused to the family due to the sudden demise of thebread earner. In the present case, the cause of action arose in theyear 2007, upon the death of the petitioner’s father. However, thepetitioner admittedly approached this Hon’ble Court in the year2017, after a delay of 10 years, which has not been explained. Itis only on this ground, this Court is not inclined to interfere inthis matter.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.)