IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1872 of 2010 1. MRITUNJAY KUMAR S/O LATE BIPIN BIHARI VERMA R/O VILL- BELISARAY, P.S. MOTIHAR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 4. THE ESTABLISHMENT ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER DISTRICT TREASURY, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ----------- 2. 05.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2009 rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner is stated to have died on 14.6.1985 in harness. It is acknowledged that on the date his father was deceased the time limit to apply for compassionate appointment was two years. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was a minor at that time and therefore could not apply. The time period was extended to five years from the date of death by government notification dated 25.5.1989 and computed from the date of death the petitioner attained majority within a period of five years i.e. before 1990. Compassionate appointment has been considered as an exception as each such appointment deprives a genuine candidate from consideration on merit. The claim for compassionate appointment arises on the date of death and has to be decided on basis of the provisions then existing. If the petitioner was a minor and did not attain majority within two years of the death his claim to be considered for compassionate appointment stood extinguished. The submission that under the circular dated 25.5.1989 this period was retrospectively extended by five years and shall be computed from the date of death, stands fully answered by the circular itself which states that it shall come into effect immediately i.e. in 1989. As discussed above, the eligibility of the petitioner to apply never accrued within a period of two years under the circular then existing. The Supreme Court in A.I.R. 2009 SC 2534 (Eastern Coalfields Ltd. M/s. Vs. Anil Badyakar) at paragraph 19 held as follows:- “19. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the instant case the employee died-in-harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personal Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Direcctor of the Company. The Director (P), who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal’s case and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court.” This Court is satisfied that today nearly 25 years later the question of considering a claim for compassionate appointment by the Court does not arise. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)