ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The petitioner to as challenged the order dated 15.9.1995, whereby his application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that he was minor on the date of death of his father.
2. The petitioner’s father was working as Headmaster in Primary School, Baddiha. He died in harness on 18.1.1989. Admittedly the petitioner was minor aged 13 years 7 months at the time of death of his father which took place in 1989. The petitioner made an application on compassionate ground, which was refused in terms of the impugned order dated 15.9.1995. The petitioner again filed a review petition, which was also rejected in 1998. However, this writ petition has been filed after 7 years from the date when the application for compassionate appointment was rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner put reliance on the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Binay Kumar v. J.S.E.B.. reported in 2002 (2) JLJR 405 : 2002 (2) JCR 585 (Jhr) and Suprakash Bhandari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2003 (1) JLJR 343. In the aforesaid case his Lordship took the view that even if claim for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground of minority a second application for such appointment within the period of five yeas, prescribed in the resolution, can he entertained and appointment could be given and application could be re-considered.
4. The Supreme Court time and again settled the law with regard 10 object of giving appointment on compassionate ground. Compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over certain crisis resulting due to the death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Following the said principles, the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 (7) SCC 192, has affirmed the order of the authority rejecting appointment on compassionate ground. In the case before the Supreme Court when the first application was filed by the petitioner he was minor and not eligible for appointment. Second application was filed for re- consideration. Their Lordship observed that there cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years. Similarly in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2000 (7) SCC 192 the Supreme court was considering a case where the petitioner’s mother when died in harness he was minor and on attaining majority after a long gap of 8 years filed an application for compassionate appointment. It was held by the Supreme Court that such an application for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the authority.
5. In the light of the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove I respectfully doubt the correctness of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. A similar question arose before a division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 414 and his Lordship S.B. Sinha, J (as he then was) took the same view that it would not be correct to say that only because son was a minor he could file an application after attaining majority. If such a interpretation is given, then the same could frustrate the Very object and purpose of policy decision. What is material for consideration is that the time is relevant when the relief is to be granted to a family in distress and not to reserve a job for one of the dependants.
6. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of the Patna High Court referred to hereinabove I respectfully doubt the correctness of the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Since sitting single I cannot take a different view and the judicial discipline demands that the matter should be referred to a Division Bench.
7. Let the matter be referred to a Division Bench to decide the correctness of the decision given by the learned Single Judge in the case of Binay Kumar v. J.S.E.B., reported in 2002 (2) JLJR 405 and Suprakash Bhandari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2003 Volume (1) JLJR 343.
8. The petitioner is directed to file second copy of the brief and if possible paper book.