IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1320 of 2009 MANISH KUMAR MANI S/O- LARE CHANDESHWAR SINHA R/O VILL- TISKHORA, P.O- GANGACHACK, P.S- MASAURHI DISTT- PATNA … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPRINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA … Respondents/Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr.Nand Lal Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Arshad Alam, SC-IV with Mr. Gautam Kr. Yadav, AC to SC-IV with ------------ PRESENT : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA O R D E R (08.04.2010) As per Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 4. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In this intra-Court appeal the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.7.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 8483/2009 has been assailed by the appellant- writ petitioner, whereby and underunder his prayer for considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground has been 2 rejected solely on the ground of delay in filing such application by the appellant- writ petitioner. 3. Counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner has submitted that such delay on the part of the appellant- writ petitioner was well explained, inasmuch as bread earner the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 22.9.1994, whereafter his elder brother being eligible for appointment on compassionate ground had filed his application within the prescribed period but he too died on 2.10.1996 leaving his mother and himself to be the two dependents of late Chandeshwar Sinha, the father of the petitioner. It has been also sought to be explained that the mother of the appellant- writ petitioner had filed an application on 26.5.1997 at a point of time when the petitioner was aged about ten years. The plea of the counsel is that his mother was not appointed on account of indecisiveness on the part of the authorities and in such circumstances the appellant- writ petitioner had filed his application on 3.11.2006 claiming appointment on compassionate ground by taking a plea that his mother was not keeping good health. 3 4. Counsel, therefore, would submit that if the date of filing of the application of his brother/ mother is taken into account, the application filed by the appellant- writ petitioner cannot be held to be barred by limitation of five years imposed in the policy of compassionate appointment. He has, accordingly, commended for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge with a consequential direction to the respondents for considering the case of the appellant- writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the appellant- writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be allowed primarily for the reason as recorded by the learned Single Judge i.e. the delay in filing of such application. Under the policy of the State Government the period of limitation for filing application for compassionate appointment is five years from the date of death of the deceased employee and in that view of the matter, as the father of the appellant- writ petitioner has died on 22.9.1994 any application filed by the appellant- writ petitioner seeking 4 appointment on compassionate ground on or after 21.9.1999 was itself not maintainable and that by itself was a good reason for rejection of the claim of the appellant- writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Additionally this Court would find that the appellant- writ petitioner in the aforesaid period of five years was not even eligible for being appointed in Government service on compassionate ground, inasmuch as he was aged about seven years as on 22.9.1994, the date of death of his father. It is in fact admission of the petitioner himself that when his mother had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 26.5.1997 even at that point of time he was aged about ten years. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh & ors. v. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414, has held that a minor would not be entitled for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground if he would not attain the majority within a period of five years, the prescribed period for filing application for appointment 5 on compassionate ground. Thus, for this additional reason as well the respondents were not under any obligation to consider the case of the appellant- writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. 7. This Court in fact is also in agreement with the findings and observations made by the learned Single Judge that if the family has survived for a period of 16 years that by itself would be sufficient to show that there was some means of sustenance ruling out the compulsion of appointment on compassionate ground. 8. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner that such appointment was to be made in view of tragic circumstances in which the family had undergone on account of murder of the father of the petitioner, premature death of the elder brother of the petitioner and continued ailment of the mother of the petitioner despite his being ineligible on account of his being minor can also not be accepted, inasmuch as it is not a hereditary claim of succession which is sought to be enforced by way of appointing a person on compassionate ground. The whole purpose of 6 appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate relief to the family on account of death of the bread earner and not to provide a livelihood or a means of appointment as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85, where the rationale of rule relating to compassionate appointment was explained in these words: “ The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. Ad per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.” 7 9. That being so, when the learned Single Judge has considered the case of the appellant- writ petitioner at length and has not found him fit to be appointed on compassionate ground, we find no reason to differ with the same. 10. Thus, for the reasons indicated in the order of the learned Single Judge as also those indicated in this order we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Patna High Court Dated 8th April 2010 AFR/Surendra