IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.94 of 2010 Ritesh Kumar, S/O Late Ram Sewak Singh Yadav, R/O Village, P.O. & P.S.- Nasariganj, District.- Rohtas. ….Petitioner- Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through Commissioner Cum Principal Secretary Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director Madhyamic Education, Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas, Sasaram. …. Respondents…Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate with Mr. Diwakar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, G.A.-5 with Mr. Kamlendra Prasad Singh and Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, A.C. to G.A.-5. ------------ 03. 11.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred against the order dated 28.10.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11081 of 2009, whereby the prayer of the petitioner (appellant herein) for quashing the resolution dated 4.10.2008 of the District Compassionate Committee rejecting his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: One Ram Sewak Singh Yadav, father of the appellant, died in harness on 15.5.1998. The appellant who was minor applied for compassionate appointment on 28.6.2001. The District Compassionate Committee rejected the claim of the 2 appellant on the ground that as per Circular No.4735, dated 19.5.1992 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, an application of compassionate appointment of a dependent child can only be considered if he attains majority within five years of death of the employee. The appellant states that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that he had filed application for compassionate appointment belatedly beyond the period of limitation. The learned Single Judge was under the impression that appellant had filed his application ten years after the death of his father. The appellant submits that the observation of learned Single Judge is not factually correct. In support of his submissions he has referred to the impugned resolution dated 4.10.2008 of the District Compassionate Committee itself, wherein it has been observed that the petitioner had applied in the year 2001 within time. 3. Counsel for the State submits that a minor cannot apply for compassionate appointment. He further submits that even assuming that a minor applied for compassionate appointment, he must attain majorhood within the period of limitation provided for filing the application. He states that on the eve of death of his father on 15.5.1998 the appellant was aged 9 years and 9 months. As per the period of 3 limitation, provided for filing application for compassionate appointment a dependent son/daughter can apply within the period of five years of death of employee provided the dependent becomes major within five years of period of limitation. He submits that though the petitioners applied within time in 2001, he did not become major within the expiry of period of limitation of five years. 4. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State we find that the circular in question does not support the contention of learned counsel for the State. The circular nowhere states that within the period of limitation the applicant should attain majorhood. The emphasis is whether the dependent should be provided employment to meet the hardship befallen in the family due to death of bread earner. The circular puts limitation of five years for making application for being considered on compassionate ground. This Court in the case of Kamla Nand Jha Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported 2007(1) P.L.J.R. 672 relying upon the judgment in the case of Brajendra Prasad Poddar vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1990(2) P.L.J.R. 668 has observed as follows: “8. This question is already settled by now by various judgments of this Court. A Bench of this Court dealing with Similar situation held in the 4 case of Brajendra Prasad Poddar vs. The State of Bihar and others [1990(2) Patna Law Journal Reports 668] that cause of a dependent, whose father died-in-harness, should not be frustrated on technical grounds and keeping in view the benevolent legislation of the State Government, liberalised view should be taken for providing employment on compassionate ground. It is further held that the dependent on attaining the age of majority would be entitled to be considered even though he may be minor at the time of death of his father. The question of under-age would be no ground to take a decision to frustrate the cause. The facts of the case at hand is almost identical to that of Brajendra Prasad Poddar (supra).” 5. From perusal of the impugned order dated 28.10.2009 it appears that the learned Single Judge was under the impression that the appellant has applied belatedly beyond the period of limitation, which is not factually correct. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order dated 28.10.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11081 of 2009 and remit the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration in accordance with law on merits. 6. With the aforesaid observation this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. (S K Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/