IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.420 of 2009 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BIHAR CIRCLE, MEGHDUT BUILDING, PATNA, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL) 2. THE TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, BHAGALPUR, BSNL 3. D.E.T. (A & P), O.O.T.D.M., BHAGALPUR ….. APPELLANTS Versus VED PRAKASH SINHA SON OF LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD, EX- TELEGRAPH MAN, C.T.O., BHAGALPUR, RESIDENT OF PANCHAM BAI LANE, BURAHA NATH ROAD, P.S. KOTWALI, AND DISTRICT BHAGALPUR …. RESPONDENT ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shree Prakash Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Shyam Kishor Das, Advocate ---------- 6. 10.9.2009 Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Shree Prakash Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.7647 of 2005, after a delay of about three and half years. However, appellant has sought to explain the delay by stating that a review application had been filed which remained pending and the review application was ultimately dismissed in January, 2009 and thereafter the present appeal has been filed. We are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However we hardly find there is any scope for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. The question relates to appointment of the present respondent on compassionate ground. There is no - 2 - dispute that the present respondent is the natural son of Late Rajendra Prasad, who was an employee under B.S.N.L. However, the present respondent himself had earlier claimed that he was an adopted son of late Hari Mohan Prasad. The B.S.N.L had rejected the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the respondent himself had said that he was an adopted son of late Hari Mohan Prasad and had inherited property from the said adoptive father and, therefore, there was no justification to consider the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that, in the meantime, the suit, wherein the present respondent was a defendant, has been decided wherein there is finding that the present respondent is not the adopted son of late Hari Mohan Prasad and claim of adoption has been declined. The counsel for the appellants in this appeal has pointed out that even though such matter had been decided and the present respondent was found not to be the adopted son, an appeal against said order was pending which was not brought the notice of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, according to the appellants there was suppression of vital aspect before the learned Single Judge. The present appeal has been filed by B.S.N.L against the impugned judgment challenging the - 3 - observation whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the B.S.N.L to reconsider the question of appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law on the basis that the petitioner is the son of late Rajendra Prasad and not the adopted son of late Hari Mohan Prasad. We do not find any reason why B.S.N.L should feel aggrieved by such observation of the learned Single Judge. It is however clarified that if the finding regarding adoption is reversed by the appellate court, the application has to be considered on that basis. Otherwise, B.S.N.L should consider the application on the footing that the respondent is the son of Late Rajendra Prasad. It is made clear that B.S.N.L is now required to reconsider the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of. Narendra/ ( P. K. Misra, CJ. ) ( Anjana Prakash, J. )