IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7264 of 2007 SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE ACHAL DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SAHIT, POLICE STATION-VIDYAPATI NAGAR,DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY. 2.THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN PATH. 4.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN PATH. 5.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CANNAL DIVISION, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA. 6.THE SUPERINTENDENIGN ENGINEER, TIRHUT CANNAL CIRCLE, GANDAK PROJECT, MUZAFFARPUR. 7.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,TIRHUT CANNAL CIRCLE,-2 GANDAK PROJECT SARAIYA, MUZAFFARPUR. 8.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 04.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The very fact that the father of the petitioner had died on 10.04.1984, and this writ application seeking a direction for appointment on compassionate ground has been filed on 01.06.2007,would be sufficient to hold that this writ application suffers from unexplained delay and laches. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would point out that the petitioner 2 was in private employment and therefore, when he came to know of the order passed by the authority dated 30.05.1991, rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground of limitation, he was advised to file this writ application. Counsel for the petitioner also explains that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had kept on representing his case before the authorities for satisfying them that the application filed by the petitioner on 08.04.1986, was well within two years of the prescribed period of limitation as existing at that point of time. In the considered opinion of this Court, all these aspects will have no meaning in law, inasmuch as, it stands well settled that mere filing of representation and awaiting result would not explain the delay in moving a Court of law and that too by way of writ application. That apart this Court would find that the petitioner was already in private employment which kept him occupied, well supported to sustain himself and in fact also satisfied for a period of 23 years. The purpose of compassionate appointment was 3 to give immediate relief to the dependent family members of the deceased employee and when the petitioner could survive even by way of private employment for a period of 23 years, there would be no scope for this Court to hold that the case of the petitioner should be now considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Law in this respect stands settled in the Case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana reported in 1994(4) SCC 138 reiterated in the case of Punjab National Bank vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja reported in 2004(7) SCC 265 as also in the case of General Manager (D & PB) and others vs Kunti Tiwary and another reported in 2004(7) SCC 271, wherein bearable financial condition on the date of death of the employee as also the delay in filing application/making claim for compassionate appointment by itself has been held to be fatal. That being so, this court would find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)