Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. Mamta Kumari filed a writ petition before the High Court after her father, Sarda Nand Tiwari, had suffered a paralytic attack in the lower limbs, thereafter an attack of tuberculosis and had to go on medical leave for three years between 1992-95. When her father attempted to join the office half paralysed, he was not given the back wages. Her father had to file a writ petition, in 1996 to seek reliefs. The High Court was of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for salary during the period of sick leave could not be ignored. The superior authority under whom the petitioner was serving was under a direction to consider the claim, in effect, for medical leave. In case this relief had been granted the petitioner perhaps would have received some emoluments as a consequence of his employment. The court was of the opinion that as long as the petitioner is allowed to continue in service and no disciplinary action is taken, in accordance with law, it would not be proper for the authorities to withhold his salary, provided he performs his duties. The order of the High Court is dated 5 March 1997. The petitioners father did not get his salary despite the High Court directing that his sickness, his leave, medical or otherwise may be examined and payment made accordingly. The petitioners father was sick and paralysed. He was down but not out of service. He filed a petition complaining of inaction by State-respondents contemptuous to High Courts order. He sought interim relief from the court. It was denied. But, in the end the contempt proceedings record on 21 April 1999 that on a show cause notice it was stated by the Deputy Development Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Patna, that arrears of Rs. 27,242.30 was paid by cheque dated 15.4.1999. Even after an order of the High Court it took a sick, paralysed, disabled public servant two years to shake the bureaucracy on a contempt action. A soulless babus writ still rules Bihar, law or no law. And in the present case, there was a law, a special law, but with disdain along with the babus bidi dona and Kullarh it was dumped into the waste basket, if there was any in the office.

2. The plight of the petitioners father, a paralysis ridden public servant, by status a petty babu himself was becoming a case of concern; a plea for basic human rights for sustenance.

3. Gradually, the health of the petitioners father took for the worst and incapacitated him beyond his paralyzed condition. The daughter now asked the authorities concerned, whether the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Patna; the Collector and District Magistrate, Patna, the Zila Parishad, Patna or the State of Bihar, for employment for sustenance as her father was immobile.

4. The daughter now needs a job to take care of her father and mother when earlier the father had a job to take care of his daughter. What exactly was the job of the petitioners father. He was a typist. He worked with the office of the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Patna. He joined this organisation in 1975. But for the fact that he has been reduced to an immobile invalid, he would be still on the job and earning for his family. It is admitted that he had discharged 24 years of service before being disabled.

5. Many issues arise in this matter. Before the court one of them is, can any person lose his public service for the only sin that during service he has been disabled; not dead, but dead for service? Would the rule of harness in service or compassionate appointment not apply in providing employment to whoever may be looking after such a public servant who has been disabled? Has the law not provided for such an unkind situation? Would the State tell a public servant rendered disabled during service you are unfit for the job now and the time has come for you to go?

6. It is possible that the daughter who brought the petition before the High Court which did not succee