ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) The writ petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order dated 21st February, 2002 wherein the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the plea on the basis of which the prayer was rejected is that the father of the writ petitioner was on extended service which, according to the respondent authorities, is not the continuation of the service of the deceased father of the writ petitioner and therefore, this prayer was rejected.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that this point has already been decided by Her Lordship, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal long back and that judgment is squarely applicable in the instant case. In that judgment it was held that the extension of service is a continuation of service of the candidate concerned and therefore, in such a case the successor of the erstwhile employee who is eligible can have right to get such compassionate appointment.;