IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6520 of 2025 ====================================================== Ashish Kumar son of late Ambika Prasad Sah, resident of bangaown khutaha, post-khutaha, p.s-lodipur, dist- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief -Cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical) Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Bhagalpur. 7. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Bhagalpur west, Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Siyaram Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 29-04-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on suitable and eligible post as after the death of his father, his mother has requested the department to make the post-retirement benefits to her and subsequently she prayed to appointment her son on compassionate appointment, but the department has not taken any decision in this regard. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is relying on the judgment of Bhola Prasad Singh Patna High Court CWJC No.6520 of 2025(2) dt.29-04-2025 2/2 Vs. the State of Bihar in CWJC No.18155 of 2014 dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submits that in the light of said decision, the petitioner is also covered under the said category and therefore, his case may be considered. 4. Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that admittedly, father of the petitioner was working as work charge and he died in the year 2005. He further submit that after lapse of about 20 years, the petitioner has come with this relief. He further submits that the said decision on which the petitioner is relying has been passed in the year 2022 i.e., 14.12.2022 and after lapse of about more than 2 years, the petitioner has come before this Hon’ble Court for the said relief. 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances that cause of action has been developed, demanding compassionate appointment by petitioner’s mother for her dead husband and subsequently, wife demanded compassionate appointment for her son after 20 years of her husband death. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and hence, the present writ application stands dismissed. Prakashmani/- (Dr. Anshuman, J.) U