IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11254 of 2011 Hari Kujur, aged 41 years, son of late Panna Lal Kujur, resident of Maharaji Hata, Railway gumti No.3, P.S.Purnea, District-Purnea. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the District Collector, Purnea having his office at Collectorate Compound, District-Purnea. 2. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Purnea having his office at Collectorate Compound, District-Purnea 3. The District Development Officer cum Secretary, District Compassionate Committee, Purnea. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 16.09.2011 Annexure-1 is the order by virtue of which claim of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate head has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Purnea. The short facts are that one Shri Ram Prasad Uraon was a jeep driver working in the district of Purnea and he died in harness on 16.12.2010. Petitioner Hari Kujur claimed himself to be brother of the deceased- employee. He submits that he was dependent on his brother and, therefore, he made claim for compassionate appointment. At the relevant time, his claim was rejected on the ground that there was no provision for providing employment to the brother of the deceased-employee in the earlier notification by the State Government for compassionate appointment. Some amendments came to be made vide letter dated 31.10.2008 where some more beneficiaries were added by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. This letter became basis for the 2 petitioner to re-apply or claim such appointment. It is submitted that re-application which has been rejected by the District Magistrate, has given the petitioner cause of action to approach the High Court. Cause of action for the petitioner arose when his brother died in the year 2000. Admitted position is that brother had no right to claim compassionate appointment and his claim was rejected soon thereafter, which was rightly done. Even if on 31.10.2008 some amendment was brought about in the policy for compassionate appointment that will relate to such causes which arose thereafter, meaning thereby that such amendment will be prospective in nature and cannot relate to past event or allow dead issues to be brought alive. The authority, therefore, rightly rejected claim of the petitioner because there was no provision by which past transaction could be re-opened or reagitated, as in the case of the present petitioner. Reasoning and rationale given by the respondents for rejection of the claim, seems to be cogent and valid and requires no interference. The writ petition is dismissed. Ravi/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)