IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16121 of 2007 1.FULESHWAR DEVI, W/O LATE MAHENDRA SINGH. 2.RAJU KUMAR, S/O LATE MAHENDRA SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ABHRAN CHAK, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME, BHOJPUR, ARRAH. 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARRAH. 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NALKUP DIVISION, ARRAH(BHOJPUR). ……………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 11.04.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present and would justify that the reason given for rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which reads as follows:- ^^Lo- egsUnz flag] uydwi esB] uydwi izeaMy] vkjk budh e`R;q lsokdky esa fnukad 10-11-1991 dks gqbZ gSA buds iq= Jh jktq dqekj }kjk vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu&i= fnukad 20-10-2006 dks fn;k x;k gSA budk tUe frfFk 14-12-1979 gS rFkk ;s vkBoka oxZ mRrhZ.k gSA fnukad 25-7-1995 dh vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd esa e`r ljdkjh lsod dh iRuh dh vuq'kalk oxZ 4 esa dh xbZ FkhA iqu% muds iq= }kjk vkosnu i= fn;k x;k gS] tks dkyckf/kr gSA lfefr }kjk bls vLohd`r djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA** In this context, he would further submit that the father of the petitioner no.2, Raju Kumar, had died on 10.11.1991 and at that point of time petitioner no. 2 was less than 12 years of age and therefore, even if the period of limitation of five years for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground is taken into account, the petitioner would be still a minor on 10.11.1996, inasmuch as, he became a major only on 14.12.1997. He has also invited the attention of this Court, that the mother of petitioner no. 2 i.e. petitioner no. 1 was already recommended for appointment on a class-IV post, but she had not accepted such appointment and that is why there would be no question of now considering the case of the petitioner no. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground, after he has become major, inasmuch as, his application filed on 20.10.2006 was clearly barred by the period of limitation. In the considered opinion of this court, the submission of learned counsel for the State has to be accepted. The appointment of petitioner no. 2 was not possible, inasmuch as, he remained a minor till 10.11.1996 when the period of five years from the date of death of his father was completed and therefore the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & ors, reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414 would squarely apply to the facts of the case of petitioner no. 2. As a matter of fact, if petitioner no. 1, the mother of petitioner no. 2 despite being recommended for class-IV post on 25.07.1995, did not choose to get appointed on compassionate ground, there would be hardly any scope for this court to allow the case of petitioner no. 2, especially when his application was time barred and he was not eligible for appointment at the time of date of death of his father. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)