ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 9th January, 2004, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 26 of 2004.
2. The learned single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant for his compassionate appointment on the ground that he was aged about 11 years at the time of death of his father and even after five years, he had not attained majority.
3. The main plea taken by the appellant is that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the appellant was aged about 11 years, which is an error of fact.
4. Admittedly, the father of the appellant, namely, (late) Bishnu Kant Pandey, was in the services of the State, working as Assistant Teacher in Project High School, Barepur, Barahi, Japla, District Palamau, who died in harness on 13th June, 1999. The appellant, being his dependent son, thereafter, applied for his compassionate appointment on 1st December, 2000, but it was rejected.
5. It appears that the case of the appellant was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee (in short ‘Compassionate Committee’), in its meeting held on 31st August, 2001, decision of which was circulated by Memo No. 45, dated 17th January, 2002 under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. From the said proceeding, it appears that the appellant is a Matriculate and his date of birth, as shown in the Matriculation Certification, is 8th December, 1984. He passed the Annual Secondary School Examination in the year, 1999 i.e. prior to the death of his father. That means he was about 15-1/2 years old at the time of death of his father.
6. Admittedly, the State Government has prescribed five years period of limitation to apply for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to apply by 12th June, 2004 i.e. after attaining majority. In the circumstances, he was also entitled for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents, in such a situation, can not reject his claim on the ground that he was minor at the time of application.
7. From the proceeding of the Compassionate Committee dated 31st August, 2001, it appears that it rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that his father (deceased employee) was not a confirmed employee and, therefore, he can not be treated to be a Government employee. Such finding being erroneous can not be accepted.
8. It is a settled law that even a temporary employee of the Government is a Government employee. Further, the circular for compassionate appointment, being applicable to all Government employees, irrespective of their status i.e. whether they are temporary of confirmed employees, the respondents can not deny the dependent of a temporary employee the benefit of compassionate appointment.
9. In the facts and circumstances, the decision of the Compassionate Committee, being illegal, the finding of the learned single Judge being not based on facts and there being an error law, the proceeding of the Compassionate Committee, as communicated vide Memo No. 45, dated 17th January, 2002, can not be upheld. The proceeding in question and the judgment dated 9th January. 2004, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 26 of 2004 both are, accordingly, set aside. The case is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau with a direction to place the case of the appellant before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for fresh consideration on merit, which will keep in mind that neither his case can be rejected on the ground that he was a minor at the time of application nor can it be rejected on the ground that his father was not confirmed. Final decision in this regard be taken and communicated to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
10. This appeal is allowed, accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and directions.