IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.101 of 2008 MANOJ RAM, son of late Ram Chandra Ram, resident of Jagjivan Nagar, Chitkohra, P.S. Gardanibagh, P.O. G.P.O., District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Commissioner cum Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna 2. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Central Range, Patna 3. The Collector cum Chairman of District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Patna … Respondents ----------- 2. 15.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner’s grievance in fact has arisen after he had already been appointed on compassionate ground on 21.1.1993 following the death of his father in the year 1992. In fact the services of the petitioner have been terminated on 26.11.1998 by giving the following reasons: AAdk;kZy;&{ks=h; funs'kd] i'kqikyu foHkkx] dsUnzh; {ks=] iVukAA Kki la[;k&ds0{ks0&4¼LFkk0½ 18@98 i0ik0&2060 iVuk]14fnukad 26-11 izsf"kr] Jh eukst jke] Lohij] i'kqikyu foHkkx] dsUnzh; {ks=] iVukA funs'kd] i'kqikyu] fcgkj] iVuk ds i= la[;k&13 LFkk0 ¼3½ 6014@98 i0ik0&5603 fnukad 29-10-98 ds lanHkZ esa vkils izkIr dkj.k crkvks uksfV'k ds vkyksd esa ik;k x;k fd vkidh fu;qfDr {ks=h; funs'kd] I'kqikyu foHkkx] dsUnzh; {ks=] iVuk }kjk muds fu;qfDr ds vf/kdkj ij ljdkj }kjk jksd ds i'pkr dh xbZ] tks voS/k gSA ftlds QyLo:Ik vkidh lsok fnukad 26-11-98 ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA g0@& jsorh je.k izlkn flag {ks=h; funs'kd] i'kqikyu dsUnzh; {ks=] iVukA Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, while assailing the 2 aforementioned order dated 26.11.1998 would submit that even if it be held that the appointment of the petitioner was made by an incompetent authority whose delegation of power had already been recalled by the State Government and also without recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, that will not change the scene, inasmuch as the petitioner will still have a right for appointment on compassionate ground. He would, accordingly, submit that it was incumbent on the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, to send the case of the petitioner to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee but that having been not done despite repeated representation of the petitioner for considering the case for compassionate appointment, the petitioner had to file this writ application on 2.1.2008. Counsel for the State has referred to the counter affidavit sworn by a Leave Reserved Officer of the Animal Husbandry Department, wherein nothing has been said as to what had happened after terminating the services of the petitioner and as to whether 3 the case of the petitioner ever sent to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for considering the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. In fact the counter affidavit to say the least is wholly vague if not perverse as it does not give any reason for not placing the case of the petitioner for consideration before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. It is not in doubt that the father of the petitioner died in harness and that on an application filed by the petitioner he was appointed on compassionate ground on 21.1.1993. If such appointment could continue for a period of more than five years and was later on found to be made by an incompetent authority by disregarding the procedure laid down for compassionate appointment though they could have cancelled such illegal appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground but they were also under obligation to place the case of the petitioner before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for taking its own decision. There is a complete silence in the 4 counter affidavit on this aspect. In that view of the matter, while this Court would not interfere with the impugned order dated 26.11.1998 but at the same time it would direct the respondent no.2 to immediately send the case of the petitioner for consideration before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and the Collector, Patna, being the Chairman of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, is hereby directed to take a final decision on the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is made clear that if the application of the petitioner is not found out the petitioner will be given an opportunity to file an application, inasmuch as it is an admitted position that the petitioner had filed such an application on which the appointment was made on 21.1.1993. If the District Compassionate Appointment Committee will recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, such appointment shall of course be a fresh appointment and the 5 petitioner will not get any benefit of his past service for the period 21.1.1993 to 26.11.1998 save and except that period may be only tagged with rest of service period of the petitioner towards qualifying service for payment of pension. The writ application in fact having been filed after more than nine years of passing of the impugned order, this Court would also not direct for any other benefit, inasmuch as if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed against him in the month of November, 1998 he had to move this Court at the earliest possible time and should not have waited upto January, 2009. It is made clear that the application of the petitioner, however, will not be rejected either on the ground of delay in filing of the application or on the ground of his being over age now in the year 2011, inasmuch as the petitioner had already been appointed on 21.1.1993 while he had the requisite age for entering in Government service. Considering all these aspects this Court would only direct for fresh 6 appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground if he would fulfil the requisite conditions as laid down in the Government policy for appointment on compassionate ground. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/