The State of Bihar and Others vs Sumitra Devi and another

Though, I.A. Nos. 756 of 1997 and 789 of 1997 were listed ''For Orders'' but with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants, L.P.A. itself was heard on merit after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants-State that by the impugned order dated 28th November, 1996 learned single Judge has erred in directing the Respondents to consider the case of Respondents (petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8389 of 1994) for compassionate appointment in the light of the Government circular.

According to learned counsel for the appellants as the deceased Government employee who died in harness, was a citizen of Nepal, as such, he could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for violation of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the said provision was applicable only to the citizen of this country.

Learned single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court to come to the conclusion that Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution form part of same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. Article 14 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territory of India. Admittedly, father of Respondent was an employee of the State and had died in hearness. In view of said admitted fact, the action of the appellant-State in refusing appointment on compassionate ground to the Respondents on the abovementioned grounds is wholly arbitrary.

In our opinion, said finding of learned single Judge based on judgment of the Apex Court does not suffer from any infirmity to require any interference by this Court. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Consequently, stay petition is also dismissed.