IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14045 of 2008 MUNNA MANJHI, S/O LATE DUKHIT MANJHI, R/O EAST DAHIYAWA JAGDAMABA ROAD, P.S. TOWN CHAPRA, DISTRICT-SARAN. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SIWAN. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 7. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT SARAN AT CHAPRA. 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SARAN CANAL ANCHAL, CHAPRA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr.Amaresh Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-V. ------------- 2 01.03.2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondent to consider his case for compassionate appointment and pass orders for such. The concerned employee died while in service on 5.7.1988. Petitioner, claiming himself to be adopted son of the employee, filed his application for compassionate appointment. Annexure-6 shows that the same was rejected by the Departmental Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 08.04.1991 itself. Petitioner now has re-agitated his claim 2 after 2005 on the basis of a letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 12.05.2005, as contained in Annexure-3, which says that there can be no distinction between natural son and an adopted son, if the adoption is as per law and valid. On the basis of that petitioner reapplied and the matter has been referred to the Department for guidelines. However, without awaiting for the guidelines, his case has been rejected, vide Annexure-6. It is true that if the adoption is legal and valid, the adopted son has to be treated at par with a natural son for all practical purposes, in law. But the question is whether the application of the petitioner should be allowed after more than 15 years? The law of compassionate appointment is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it has been authoritatively laid down by the Apex Court that the same has to be applied very strictly. The law has been saved only because of the reason that the family of the Government employee who dies in service all of a sudden does need immediate support to overcome the financial crisis 3 faced by the family. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the said letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 12.05.2005 was issued in the light of certain orders of this Court and in view of the legal position having been clarified by this Court the Department had suggested to all the subordinate authorities to reconsider such cases which may have been rejected on the ground of applicant being adopted son. That may be so, but the question is whether that can be allowed after 15 years, or not. The said instructions of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department may be valid for cases which may have been rejected in recent past and which may require reconsideration. But surely the same need not be applied in the case of a person who sat over the matter for almost 15 years and then has started making efforts for reconsideration of his case afresh. In these 15 years the condition of the family must have changed, the members must have made sufficient arrangements to meet their 4 financial needs. The writ application is dismissed on account of delay and laches. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)