Nitesh Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2337 of 2014 =========================================================== Nitesh Sinha Son Of Late Rabindra Prasad And Late Ginni Sinha (Mother) Resident Of Road No. 2, Khas Mahal, Chiraiyatand, P.S. Jakanpur, P.O. - G.P.O., Patna - 800001 .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Bihar, Patna

2. The Special Secretary Cum Deputy Director, Department Of Education, Bihar, Patna

3. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Patna Division, Situated At Floor No. -4, Room No. 706, Budha Marg, Patna

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Situated In Collectorate Compound, P.O. - G.P.O., Patna

5. The Principal Badsha Nawab Rizvi Training College, Gulzarbagh, Patna - 800007 .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Fazal Rahman For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-12-2015 *************** 02.12.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The object of providing compassionate appointment is not to provide opportunity of employment to unemployable children of a government servant. The primary object is to extend immediate succor to the family due to sudden death of the bread-earner of the family.

The facts of the present case are that father and mother of the present petitioner were both government servants. The father retired and is drawing

Patna High Court CWJC No.2337 of 2014 dt.02-12-2015 2/2 pension. Mother continued in service. But, unfortunately, she passed away due to cancer. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment. The liability within the family has been indicated that the elder brother of the petitioner is working in a private company. Details of which has not been deliberately provided, as to the nature of work and the name of the company. Merely taking a plea that he separated from the family, not taking responsibility of the family may not do. The petitioner seems to be the only unemployed progeny of the two government servants. There seems to be enough resources to run the affairs of the family. The Court, therefore, will not give any direction for engagement of the petitioner under compassionate head, because this case does not come within the purview of the object for which compassionate appointment is required to be made.

Writ application stands dismissed with observation as above.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) U SKM/-