IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12621 of 2006 Vinay Kumar Thakur @ Vinay Kr. S/o Late Sheo Sharan Prasad Thakur, resident of vill. + P.O. Akuna, Via- Punpun, P.S. Mashaudhi, Distt. Patna Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Forest Secretary 2. Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Bihar, Patna 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Daltanganj, South Forest Division 4. The District Magistrate, Palamu 5. The Additional Collector, Establishment, Palamu 6. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Ranchi ------ For the petitioner: M/S Sudhir Kumar Jha & Pawan Kumar, Advocates For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. Dhruba Mukharjee, Sr. SC to Jharkhand For the State of Bihar, Mr. Amarendra Kumar, AC to GP XI ------ 2. 6.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his father who died in harness on 25.4.1992 while working as Forester in South Forest Division, Daltanganj. The relevant facts for the consideration of the present matter are that the father of the petitioner, Late Shiv Sharan Prasad Thakur was an employee of the undivided State of Bihar and posted at South Forest Division, 2 Daltonganj as Forester. While still in service he died on 25.4.1992. The said employee after the death of his first wife, married second time one Kanti Devi, who is mother of the petitioner. From the first wife also he has a son, Rambali Thakur. After the death of the employee the said Rambali Thakur applied for compassionate appointment in 1992 and had also made claim for death-cum-retiral benefits of his father. The same was opposed by Most. Kanti Devi and in view of the said dispute, she was informed by the respondents by letter dated 28.6.1996 that death-cum-retiral dues of the ex-employee would be given to her only upon production of succession certificate from a competent Court. She filed Succession Case No. 52/1993 and by order dated 5.3.1998 one-fourth share was allotted to each of the four surviving heirs including the daughter born from the second marriage. Thereafter on 6.1.1999 the petitioner filed his application for compassionate appointment. Ultimately the same was considered by the District Compassionate Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate and was rejected on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of five years prescribed by the circular of the State Government for filing 3 of such application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was under the impression that he would be eligible to apply only after the grant of succession certificate and for the said sole reason the application was filed in the year 1999. It is thus submitted by him that in the facts of the case, the application ought to have been considered by the authorities. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, submits that there is no provision for relaxation of the period of 5 years as provided by the relevant circular dated 5.10.1991 with regard to appointment on compassionate ground as amended by the subsequent circular no. 2824 dated 27.4.1995. It is thus submitted that the authorities have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the District Compassionate Committee at its meeting held on 24.5.2000 but the petitioner has filed the writ application in October, 2006 more than six years after the said rejection and thus it is a fit case for rejecting his writ application as being stale and hit 4 by laches on his part. It is also urged that the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to meet the immediate financial crisis of the family and the conduct of the petitioner in filing the application for compassionate appointment after seven years and thereafter filing the writ application six years from the rejection of the application shows that there is no financial crisis in the family. On a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, this Court finds sufficient force in the submissions of learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. It is evident that the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it has been filed beyond five years after the death of the deceased government employee which cannot be held to be contrary to law. Moreover, the petitioner also sat over the matter even after rejection of his application for compassionate appointment and thus the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ application is dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)