IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4148 of 2007
SUSHIL KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
4. 11.4.2011 Despite indulgence given to the
counsel for the State there has been no
supplementary counter affidavit on the issue
as to whether the father of the petitioner
was working against a temporary sanctioned
post or permanent sanctioned post. The
reliance placed by the counsel for the State
on paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit
will be of no avail, inasmuch as it only
talks of appointment of the father of the
petitioner without following prescribed
manner but against the sanctioned post. If
the post was sanctioned the respondents
could not have denied consideration of the
case of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground, inasmuch as the
circular dated 5.10.1991 does not talk of
only existence of permanent sanctioned post
for the deceased employee to be the relevant
factor for considering the case of his
dependent for appointment on compassionate
ground.
Counsel for the State in fact has
2
sought one more indulgence to show that the
post, on which the father of the petitioner
was working, consequent to his take-over of
services by the State Government, neither
against a temporarily sanctioned post nor a
permanently sanctioned post.
This Court will accordingly give
one more indulgence to the counsel for the
State to file his supplementary counter
affidavit on the issue but it is made clear
that if on next day also there will be no
supplementary counter affidavit this Court
will proceed to decide the matter without
awaiting for the same.
List this case on 18th April, 2011
at the top of the list.
(Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)
Surendra/