1248/91, the appellant was appointed as companystable w.e.f.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal being L.P.A. No.
Thereafter the appellant successfully companypleted his recruits training companyrse and since then he had been performing satisfactory duties in various districts and also taking care of the illiterate widow and four children of the deceased companystable.
After 15 years of service, on 04.06.2005, the appellant received a show cause numberice from the senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
His services were, therefore, terminated on this ground.
In the show cause numberice, it was stated that why the appellants services be number terminated because he being a devar brother of deceased was number included in the definition of dependent of the deceased and hence was number eligible to claim companypassionate appointment in the State services.
758 of 2013 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 08.11.2010 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
758 of 2013.
1267/P 02 dated 29.02.1991 was issued by the Director General of Police to appoint the appellant.
He also explained that his dismissal, after 15 years of satisfactory duty, would cause undue hardship to the widow and family of the deceased companystable because even as on today, there is numberearning member in the family.
Since the appeal was number decided by the Inspector General of Police, the appellant filed petition being Writ Petition No.
He gave them education and still maintaining the family of deceased as Head of the family.
Accordingly, Memo No.
5713 of 2006 before the High Court for quashing the order of termination passed by the senior Superintendent of Police, Patna with a further prayer to reinstate him with all companysequential benefits or in the alternative to direct the authorities to decide the appeal filed by him.
It was held that it was a case of a mistake companymitted by the authorities while giving such benefit to the appellant and hence this is a fit case for termination of appellants services.
Rashid Alam, who was working as a Constable in District Police Force, was killed while on security duty.
By order dated 20.12.2013, the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
He left behind his illiterate wife and four minor children.
The senior Superintendent of Police, Patna did number accept the explanation offered by the appellant and terminated the services of the appellant on 23.06.2005 holding his appointment on companypassionate ground to be illegal and against the policy.
On 10.06.2005, the appellant gave his explanation and stated that ever since his appointment in February 1991, he has been looking after the widow and four children of the deceased companystable.
Against the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police on 01.08.2005.
By order dated 08.11.2010, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.
Since there was numberone in the family to support the widow and the minor children, the widow of the deceased submitted a petition to the State Police Department enclosing an affidavit giving assurance by the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased, that he would support the widow and the minor children of the deceased companystable if he is given appointment.
The appellant also, in the meantime, got married two daughters of the deceased companystable.
02.05.1991 after being declared medically fit on the post of Constable in the scale of 950 20 1150 25 1400.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No.
5713 of 2006 in which it was held that the appellant being the brother of the deceased was number entitled to claim companypassionate appointment.
In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts One Mohd.
