The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government's policy decision making a distinction in compassionate appointment based on the source of entry into permanent service was declared as ultra vires, and the earlier notification was upheld as valid.

Nagendra Rai and S.N.Hussain JJ.

1. All the appeals arise out of an order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the learned single Judge except L.P.A. Mo. 303 of 2004 which arises out of an order dated 26.9.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8241 of 2003 relying on the earlier order dated 27.8.2003, and the point involved in all the appeals being the same they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. L.P.A. Nos. 1200 of 2003 and 303 of 2004, are barred by limitation.

3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petitions, the delay in filing both the appeals is condoned.

4. Admitted facts are that the fathers of the appellants were initially engaged in work-charged establishment. Later on, in terms of the Government Policy, their services were regularised and made permanent. However, posts in the work-charged establishments were carried to the permanent establishment for the purposes of making them permanent. They died while in service. The appellants claim appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Government Policy. In some cases it has been rejected and in some cases no order has been passed on the ground that in view of the policy decision of the State Government dated 27.12.2002 benefit of appointment on compassionate ground will be available only to the dependents of those employees who were appointed on sanctioned post through proper procedure and as the deceased employees were in work-charged establishment and their services were regularised and made permanent, their dependents are not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. Learned single Judge relying upon the Government decision accepted the stand of the State Government and held that the case of the deceased employees whose services were regularised and made permanent stand on different footing than those employees who are appointed by following legal procedure and as such their dependents cannot claim compassionate appointment.

5. The factual foundation for deciding the controversy is like this. The deceased employees on whose death these appellants claim compassionate appointment were admittedly employees in the workcharged establishment of the Government of Bihar. It is also an admitted position that the Water Resources Department came out with a policy decision on 25.5.1978 that those employees who have completed more than five years in service on 1.4.1977 should be regularised and they should be made permanent, however, the post in the work-charged establishment to the extent of the employees being made permanent should be reduced. A copy of the said policy decision has been annexed as Annexure 1 to C.W.J.C. No. 2064, out of which L.P.A. No. 897 of 2003 arises. The same policy was again reiterated by the State Government on 20.8.1981.

6. The employees after regularisation were working in permanent establishment and were getting revision of pay etc. and in case of some of the employees after their death their family members were getting family pension. The deceased employees while working in that capacity died in harness and thereafter the appellants applied for compassionate appointment. In many cases recommendations were made for appointment and in some cases it has been rejected. There is no dispute that the Water Resources Department has come out with a policy contained in letter No. 239 dated 17.2.1995 which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the aforesaid writ application that the benefit of compassionate appointment will be also available to the dependents of the work-charged employees whose services were regularised in regular establishment with their post by the competent authority and on the basis of the said circular the appointments were being made to the class of the employees earlier in the work-charged establishment but later on taken into permanent establishment. Thereafter, impugned circular dated 27.12.2002, which has been challe