IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9281 of 2007 SMT.PHULJHARI DEVI, wife of late Sita Ram Singh, resident of village Ratanchak, P.O. Hathua, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The State of Jharkhand through its Director General Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … Respondents ----------- 2. 13.4.2011 Heard Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State of Bihar as also the State of Jharkhand. The prayer of the petitioner for appointment of her son on compassionate ground taking a plea that when her husband had died on 1.12.1990 the son was aged about 3½ years (his date of birth being 11.3.1987), would by itself be sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, however, would contend that if the petitioner was given assurance by the Superintendent of Police that either she or her son should 2 apply after attaining majority will have also no meaning in law. It will in fact change the whole scheme of compassionate appointment into a reservation for a dependent ward of a deceased employee. That however is not the scope of such a scheme as was interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414, wherein the Division Bench has laid down the law that even if the dependent is a minor on the date of death of the employee dying in harness, he must become major within the period of limitation of filing of such application failing which he would stand disqualified for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case the deceased employee died on 1.12.1990 and the limitation, therefore, of five years of filing application also expired on 30.11.1995 on which day the son of the petitioner was still well below nine years of age. That would be, therefore, by itself bring curtains on the case of appointment of the son of the petitioner on compassionate 3 ground. As this Court has gone in to the root of the matter and has found the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her son on compassionate ground to be untenable it is not required to deal with other contentions. This application is accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/