IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9777 of 2009 Ram Dayal Yadav, son of Late Ram Charitar Yadav, village Koeri Bigha, PS Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Secretary, Home Department (Special), Bihar, Patna. 3) Under Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Bihar, Patna. 4) District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 5) Block Dev. Officer, Makhdumpur, Patna. 6) Ram Naresh Yadav, son of Late Jagdeo Yadav village Allahganj, PS Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad – Respondents. 6 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is unfortunate person who could not get Government job on compassionate ground although all other persons who were affected in the same occurrence were provided Government job. In the year 1989 an occurrence took place due to nexalite attack killing two Government officials and two voters. The son of the Government officials were given jobs on compassionate ground. Two of the voters, namely, Jagdeo Yadav and Ram Charitar Yadav also died in the occurrence. The son of Jagdeo Yadav i.e. Ram Naresh Yadav was appointed on compassionate ground under the orders of the Chief Minister whereas the petitioner could not be appointed at that stage. Apparently, a question was raised in the Assembly by the local M.L.A. with respect to the appointment. Annexure 3 is the answer which was stated before the Assembly. It reveals that three persons out of four were given Government job whereas the petitioner could not be given the benefit of Government employment, because there is a provision to give employment to 2 only one person from one family. In other words, the petitioner was not given the appointment because he was supposedly in some manner related to Jagdeo Yadav. When the petitioner learnt about this fact, he moved the authorities concerned explaining that he was not in any way related to Jagdeo Yadav. His application was rejected mainly on the ground that in the mean time this court by order, dated 9.8.2002 passed in CWJC No. 5808/1997 and the order passed in CWJC No. 7719/2005 held that the appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the fact that announcement has been made by the Chief Minister, is not in accordance with law. This was the stand taken on behalf of the State in its counter affidavit. In the second counter affidavit filed today, it has been stated that the petitioner had raised his claim after eighteen years before the Legislative Assembly. I may clarify here that it was the M.L.A. who had raised the question and not that the petitioner had filed a representation before the Assembly. Apart from other facts this court finds that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give relief to the affected family. This petitioner has moved this court in 2009 which is after a great delay and although he claims that he was pursuing his remedy, obviously such stand cannot justify the delay in coming to this court. Another fact which is important in this case is that the petitioner describes himself to be about thirty two yeas of age at the time of filing of the writ petition, which would make him a minor at the time when the occurrence had taken place. On this ground as well the petitioner 3 could not have been given the same benefit as was given to son of Jagdeo Yadav. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)