Musmat Fuleshwari Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.393 of 2025 ====================================================== Musmat Fuleshwari Devi widow of Late Maheshwar Raut, resident of I-type colony, ward no. 12, Birpur, P.S.- Birpur, District-Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Main Secretariat, Patna.

3.

The District Officer-cum- Chairperson, District Compassionate Committee, Supaul.

4.

The District Welfare Officer, Supaul.

5.

The Sub Division Officer, Basantpur, District-Supaul. 6.

The Block Development Officer, Basantpur, District-Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Pleader (07) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the District Officer-cum-Chairperson of the District Compassionate Committee, Supaul, to consider the petitioner's application dated 16.07.2024 for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. Learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection and submitted that, from paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition, it becomes crystal clear that after the death of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.393 of 2025(2) dt.23-01-2025 2/2 deceased employee, both sons of the petitioners submitted their applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. Consequently, their applications were rejected by the District Compassionate Committee, Supaul, on 01.01.2024, as stated in Memo No. 03-2."

4. In light of the submissions made, it transpires to this Court that both sons of the deceased employee had already submitted their applications for appointment on compassionate grounds, which have already been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner's son should have challenged the said rejection, rather than filing a fresh Writ Petition to entertain application. Moreover, on the basis of the pleadings made itself, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U