IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.662 of 2006 ASHOK KUMAR YADAV,son of late Sukhdeo Yadav, resident of village Kamalpur, P.S. Kunauli, District-Supaul ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Building, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Deptt. Govt of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Birpur 5. The Executive engineer, Embankment Division, Koshi Project, Nirmali 6. The District Compassionate Committee, through the Chairman-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul ……………………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: - Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate For the State: M/S Anil Kumar Jha, GA 2 with S.K.Mishra, J.C. to GA 2 ----------- 4. 21.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to issue orders regarding appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner died on 28.12.1988. It is claimed that his father was initially appointed in Work charged Establishment and subsequently his services were regularized in regular Establishment and he died while rendering such services in the regular Establishment. The petitioner claims to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 23.3.1993 within the period of limitation of five years as extended by the Circular dated 25.5.1989 issued by the State Government. However, his application was - 2 - rejected on the ground of being time barred. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, claims that the said order of rejection dated 8.12.1993, which has been brought on the record by way of counter affidavit, was never served upon the petitioner nor he was informed about such rejection at any point of time. It is claimed that the petitioner filed several representations in the meantime and ultimately he has approached this Court by filing the present writ application on 17.1.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the respondent taken in the said order of rejection dated 8.12.1993 is contrary to law since the earlier period of limitation of two years stood extended by the government circular dated 25.5.1989 which had come into force within five months of the death of his father and therefore, the fresh period of limitation of five years became applicable in his case. Regarding the delay in approaching this Court it is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner had been approaching the authorities by filing various representations from time to time and further he had been dissuaded from approaching this Court earlier on account of decision taken by the State Government not to grant appointment on compassionate ground to dependents of employees who had been appointed initially in the Work charged Establishment. It is stated that the matter ultimately traveled to this Court and by a decision of the Division Bench in 2004 it was held that the dependents of such employees who were taken in regular Establishment were also entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. - 3 - Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is guilty of excessive delay and laches in the present matter and therefore he is not entitled to be granted any appointment on compassionate ground even if this Court comes to the view that the order rejecting his application dated 8.12.1993 was on non est ground. It is submitted that the petitioner admittedly had filed his application after four years and three months of the death of his father and thereafter it appears, although it cannot be said with certainty on the basis of materials on the record, that he became aware of the said rejection and in any case he did not approach this Court with reasonable expedition in the matter. It was nearly 13 years after he had filed his application for compassionate appointment that he has, for the first time, approached this Court. The other ground taken by the petitioner regarding the State Government decision of non- appointment of dependents of Work charged employees, is assailed on the ground that there is nothing on the record to support any such stand of the petitioner and it appears to be an after thought. In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir : AIR 2006 SC 2743, in paragraph no. 17 of which it has been held as follows:- “In the case on hand, the father of the applicant died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had - 4 - passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter-departmental communication in 1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal.” In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court does not find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner had himself initially delayed filing the application by nearly four years and three months instead of applying immediately although the same could not be said to be beyond the period of limitation prescribed in view of the subsequent circular dated 25.5.1989 of the State Government which had come into force before the expiration of the period for application under the earlier circular and would therefore enure to the benefit of the petitioner. However, even after filing of the said application, the petitioner did not take steps to find out about the fate of his petition and mere submission of repeated representations and reminders cannot be of any avail to the petitioner. It is a settled proposition that a person cannot sit over the matter and merely keep on filing representations and reminders before the authorities if they do not act within a reasonable time; in the matter, in such circumstances the person concerned is excepted to approach the Court without any undue delay and laches. No such action was taken by the petitioner and only after 13 years of filing his - 5 - application, he has, for the first time, approached this Court claiming that he had no knowledge of rejection of his application and further that he was dissuaded from doing so because of certain policy decision of the State Government. Such plea cannot exonerate the petitioner of the charge of being guilty of delay and laches. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138, it was held by the Supreme Court that the purpose of compassionate appointment is only to enable the family to get over the immediate financial crisis which it faces due to the death of the sole breadwinner. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The observations of the Supreme Court made in para-6 of the said judgment are quoted below:- “For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been followed in a large number of cases including the case cited by learned counsel for the State, namely, the State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (Supra). From a consideration of the facts in the present matter it is evident that the case of the petitioner stands on a much worse footing than that of the respondents of the said case before - 6 - the Supreme Court. In the said case after rejection of the case for prayer for compassionate appointment by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, the matter had gone to the Division Bench in letters patent appeal and the compassionate appointment was allowed. The same was however set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that if the family survives for nearly 15 years after the death of the sole breadwinner, it is sufficient to negate the claim for compassionate appointment. Thus, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has survived for 20 years after the death of his father and considering the manner in which he has conducted himself throughout he does not deserve to be appointed on compassionate ground at this belated stage. The writ application is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)