IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.527 of 2008 VIJAY RAUT, S/O LATE RAJARAM RAUT, R/O VILLAGE BAHADURPUR, P.S. BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. …………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COLLECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN(BIHAR). 3.THE SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHESWARAIYA BHAWAN, BELI ROAD, PATNA. 4.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHESWARAIYA BHAWAN, BELI ROAD, PATNA. 5.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOK NIRMAN DEPARTMENT (BUILDING), BIHAR, PATNA. 6.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER LOK NIRMAN DEPARTMENT (ROAD), NORTH BIHAR CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR. 7.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD DIVISION, MOTIHARI. …………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 15.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner’s prayer for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground has to be rejected only on the ground of delay in moving this Court. The father of the petitioner died on 02.06.1979, and the petitioner has filed this writ application on 04.01.2008 i.e. after 28½ years of the cause of action. The only explanation of the petitioner is that he was awaiting the 2 decision to be taken on an application filed by him within the prescribed period of time and that if the authorities have themselves delayed in disposing of the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. The whole question would be as to what right is sought to be enforced by the petitioner. The petitioner had a cause of action in the year 1979 for compassionate appointment in order to ward off crisis inflicted on the family on account of death of the bread earner. The petitioner therefore, if he had waited for disposal of his application for more than 28 years, he cannot be allowed to now make a complain as with regard to delay caused in the disposal of such application. That being so, the delay and laches of more than 28 years in filing of this writ application would be itself sufficient to dismiss this application. Counsel for the State is correct in pointing out that now the petitioner is aged about 55 years and also fully illiterate and 3 thus not even otherwise eligible for appointment in terms of the Government policy requiring the person to have passed class-VIII examination even being appointed against class-IV post. Thus when this court has found that the writ application is wholly belated with no explanation whatsoever for delay and laches on his part in moving this Court for a period of 28½ years, this Court cannot now exercise its discretion in favour of a person who even otherwise is ineligible for being appointed on class-IV post in the State Government. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)