Kamlesh Paswan, v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3940 of 2019 ====================================================== Kamlesh Paswan, Son of Bansi Paswan, Resident of Village- Paharpur Dariaura, P.S. Amas, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya.

4.

The Circle Officer, Amas, District- Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned GP-4 for the State is present.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision taken by the concerned authorities on the application of the father of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Chaukidar/Dafadar in pursuant to a government decision contained in Communication No. 1896 dated 05.03.2014.

4. Learned Advocate for the State, at the outset, submitted that the father of the petitioner had already retired from the post of Chaukidar in Amas Anchal on 30.11.2016 and he has already withdrawn his salary till the date of his

Patna High Court CWJC No.3940 of 2019(5) dt.30-04-2025 2/2 retirement. Moreover, the application of the father of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement and to appoint his son in his place was duly considered and came to be rejected by the concerned authority. It is further contended that the issue regarding compassionate appointment of the son of the Chaukidar/Dafadar set at rest by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devmuni Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2023) 2 PLJR 425, which decision also got affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, holding the proviso to Rule 5(7) contrary to express provisions of the Constitution, being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. The counter affidavit came to be filed long back on 26th June, 2019 but till date, there is no denial; there is also none to represent the petitioner. In view thereof, considering the settled legal position, the present writ petition stands closed. (Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U