Siya Ram Choudhary vs The State of Bihar and Others

The present appeal has been ferred against the order dated 18.9.2001 passed in CWJC No. 2949 of 2001 which the writ court had not interreferrence the decisions of the District compassionate Appointment Committee (sic) 14.7.2000 and 18.9.2001 rejecting the(sic) of the Petitioner-Appellant as two elder brothers were gainfully employees.

The contention of the petition Appellant is two fold: firstly, that his application for compassionate appointment (sic) not have been rejected only on the (sic) that his two elder brothers were employees and secondly, it was also required (sic) seen as to whether the widow and (sic) family members could be taken care(sic) after the demise of his father in har(sic)early been contended that the two Brothers had filed affidavits that they seperate from their mother and younger brother as such, their earning was not (sic) in supporting the family.

The learned writ court while going (sic)gh the two affidavits sworn by the two elder brothers dated 10.4.2000 and (sic)2000 found that the affidavits were the (sic)on copy of each other and were brought (sic)e record at the instance of the Petitioner-Appellant. It has further considered (sic)the Petitioner-Appellant did not have (sic)vested right for compassionate Appointment.

As the family of the deceased was possessed of other means of livelihood, inculding employment of one or more members of the family, it cannot be said that the family cannot sustain itself without compassionate appointment of the writ Petitioner. The learned writ court relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, in this regard.

We do not find any error in the (sic)said order requiring interference by court.

Dismissed.