IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11450 of 2007 DUKHANI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SITA RAM PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-ISMAILPUR, POLICE STATION-SADAR HAZIPUR, DISTRICT-HAZIPUR, VAISHALI. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COLLECTOR, HAZIPUR, VAISHALI. 3.THE DEPUTY COLECTOR, INCHARGE, DISTRICT GENERAL SECTION, HAZIPUR, VAISHALI. 4.THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HAZIPUR, VAISHALI. 5.THE CIRCLE OFFICER, HAZIPUR. 6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HAZIPUR, VAISHALI. 7.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SADAR CIRCLE, HAZIPUR, VAISHALI. 8.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE SADAR POLICE STATION, HAZIPUR, VAISHALI. 9.JAGESHWAR PASWAN, S/O RAM RAJ PASWAN, AT PRESENT CHAUKIDAR, VILLAGE-ISMAILPUR, POLICE STATION-SADAR, HAZIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI(HAZIPUR). …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 07.04.2011 Heard Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner, in this writ application is for appointment of her son, Amerjeet Kumar Paswan on compassionate ground, on a premise that her husband died in harness on 17.04.1986. Mrs. Verma, has submitted that at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner, Amerjeet Kumar Paswan, her son was minor and therefore, an application for 2 his appointment on compassionate ground was filed after he became major. She would further submit that as a matter of fact, compassionate appointment after the death of her husband was made by way of employing the Devar of the petitioner, but somehow he has not been looking after the interest of the dependent family members of the husband of the petitioner, and as such, she has no other option but to now seek appointment of her son on compassionate ground. Counsel for the State, on the other hand would submit that the son of the petitioner was not qualified for appointment on compassionate ground as he was minor at the time of the death of his father i.e. 17.04.1986, when the husband of the petitioner, had died and in fact her son remained minor till the expiry of the period of limitation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the solitary prayer made in this writ application seeking direction for appointment of the son of the petitioner, Amerjeet Kumar Paswan on compassionate ground has to be rejected, inasmuch as, the 3 son of the petitioner, Amerjeet Kumar Paswan was minor on 17.04.1986 and in fact did not became major in next two years from the date of death of his father. Such person who was minor at the time of death of his father is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment, as and when he would like after becoming major. Appointment on compassionate ground under the Government policy does not contemplate reservation on the post on which one member of the family of the deceased employee has to be necessarily employed as and when he would stake such a claim. This aspect of the matter has been considered and decided by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & ors, reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414 and that being a binding precedent, it has to be followed by this Court. The issue as to whether, the Devar of the petitioner appointed on compassionate ground on death of her husband was not looking after the interest of the family of the deceased employee, can not be gone into in this writ application, inasmuch as, the relief herein has been sought only with 4 regard to a direction for appointment of the son of the petitioner, Amerjeet Kumar Paswan. If the petitioner can prove that her Devar was appointed on compassionate ground arising out of death of her husband and that he has not been looking after the interest of the family members of the deceased employee, the husband of the petitioner, the competent authority would look into this aspect and would take a final decision in accordance with law. Let it be however noted that so far, the case of the son of the petitioner, Amerjeet Kumar Paswan on compassionate appointment is concerned, that must acquire finality and is rejected outright by this Court, especially when the authorities have also considered the same and have rejected such claim of the petitioner, as would also appear from the copy of the counter affidavit. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)