IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6038 of 2008 ARUN KUMAR VERMA, son of Jagarnath Singh, resident of village Chittoli, P.S. Rohtas, District Rohtas … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Establishment Committee, District Rohtas at Sasaram through its Chairman, i.e. District Magistrate, Rohtas 3. The District Magistrate, District Rohtas 4. The Deputy Collector, Establishment District Rohtas 5. The District Superintendent of Education, District Rohtas 6. The Area Education Officer, Dehri-on-sone, District Rohtas … Respondents ----------- 2. 22.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Assailing the impugned order dated 8.10.2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of its being time barred learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that true it is that the application filed by the petitioner after the death of the deceased employee on 11.3.1986, on 13.2.2001 is barred by the period of limitation of five years provided in the policy laid down by the State Government in the circular dated 5.10.1991 read with subsequent circular dated 27th April, 1995 but then there were compelling circumstances in which the petitioner’s application ought 2 to have been entertained. In this context he would explain that after the death of the deceased employee, the mother of the petitioner, an application for compassionate appointment was filed by the father of the petitioner and the same was rejected on 2.9.1991 by the Compassionate Appointment Committee on the ground that the husband of the deceased female employee would not be held to be dependent and thus, disentitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of the case of the petitioner was wholly unjustified, inasmuch as when the family pension was also sanctioned in his favour he was definitely dependent of the deceased female Government servant, mother of the petitioner. He would, accordingly, submit that the first application filed by the father of the petitioner could have been treated to be even an application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. Proceeding on this basis learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application filed by the petitioner on 13.2.2001 after the 3 petitioner had attained majority cannot be held to be barred by limitation. In the considered opinion of this Court there are two snags in the aforementioned submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, if for any reason the father of the petitioner was an applicant and his application was rejected on 2.9.1991 after the death of the deceased employee on 4.2.1986, that could not have been revived by filing this writ petition, inasmuch as that order has not been challenged before this Court nor it could have been done so after a lapse of 17 years from the date of the said order. Therefore, once the application of the father of the petitioner was rejected, the whole claim of compassionate appointment had itself come to an end and if the father of the petitioner did not choose to assail such a reason today the writ Court cannot be compelled to declare that order to be bad at the behest of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was admittedly raised by him for the first time 4 in the year 2001 by filing his application as is clearly stated in the letter of the District Superintendent of Education which would by itself go to show that the same was filed after expiry of a period of five years. It is well known that the power to relax time limit or any condition has to be incorporated in the policy or the statutes itself. Here in this case when the policy was framed on 5.10.1991 there was no time limit fixed for filing of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. That provision was, however, found to be unconstitutional by this Court and when the matter was remitted for reconsideration the State Government by its circular dated 27th April, 1995 had clearly prescribed that time limit for filing of application for appointment on compassionate ground shall be limited only upto period of five years. Thus, when there was no provision made in the circular dated 27.4.1995 for relaxation on any ground whatsoever, the competent authority could not have looked into the circumstances referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner for condoning 5 such delay of 15 years in filing of the application by the petitioner. There would be another aspect which would make the petitioner disentitled for appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that when the mother of the petitioner, deceased employee, had died on 4.2.1986 the petitioner was aged about four years and therefore, when the petitioner also would not become major within the period of limitation then prescribed as two years and subsequently enhanced to five years in the year 1989, he would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as has been already held by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414. Thus, when the petitioner on account of his being minor was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under the existing policy dated 12.7.1977 his application being filed after attaining majority in 2001 has been rightly rejected as a time barred application. 6 For all these reasons, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/