1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10819 of 2008 SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O LATE RAM SHANKAR MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE+P.O. PATALIYA VIA NARHAN, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR. 4.THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR. 5.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,SAMASTIPUR. 6.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION, ROSERA, SAMASTIPUR. 7.THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR. ............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 03.05.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in its resolution dated 02.07.2010 on the following ground which reads as follows:- ^^fnukad 22-12-09 dks vk;ksftr ftyk vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd esa fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fk fd vkosnd ykirk deZpkjh ds vkfJr iq= gSa rFkk budk vkosnu i= ikap o"kksZa ds ckn izkIr gqvk gS] blfy, bl laca/k esas ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ls ekaxk tk,A dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds i=kad 1381 fnukad 12-04-2010 ls ekxZn'kZu Hkstk x;k gS fd ykirk deZpkjh Lo0 jkek'kadj egrksa ds vkfJr iq= dk vkosnu fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k ds ckn izkIr gqvk gS bl ij bUgsa vuqdEik dk ykHk ns; ugha gSA vr% ftyk vuqdEik lfefr }kjk buds vkosnu i= dks loZlEefr ls vLohd`r fd;k x;kA** Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such reasoning of the committee cannot be sustained either on fact or in law, inasmuch as, when the father of the 2 petitioner had been found to be missing from 24.03.1995, a period of seven year had to be spent for presuming him to be dead in terms of Section 108 of the Evidence Act. He would accordingly, submit that the limitation for filing the application for appointment on compassionate ground would commence only from 23.03.2002. In this regard he would also submit that when the petitioner had already filed an application on 01.04.2005, the same cannot be held to be time barred, inasmuch as, the same was well within the period of limitation of five years of the presumptive date of death of the father of the petitioner. Counsel for the State who has filed a counter affidavit has however no instruction beyond the stage of the application of the petitioner having been sent for consideration of the his case by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. He would however like to explain that the subsequent decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee seems to be based on some clarifications given in its letter no. 1381 dated 12.04.2010, which is not on record of this case. 3 In view of the fact that the petitioner has filed his supplementary affidavit, incorporating news facts, this Court in the interest of justice would direct the Collector of Samastipur to reconsider the case of the petitioner, once again in the light of the fact that the date of presumptive death of the father of the petitioner will be only 23.03.2002, i.e. after expiry of the period of seven years from the date on which he was continuously missing. In fact this aspect of the matter has been clarified by the State Government in its circular dated 31.10.2008, relevant provisions whereof reads as follows:- ^^3- vr% ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k esa fn;s x;s lq>koks rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj ds mDr dk;kZy; Kkiu esa fufgr izko/kku ds vkyksd esa] jkT; ljdkj }kjk lE;d:is.k fopkjksijkar fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy;s x;s gS& ¼1½ ;fn dksbZ ljdkjh lsod vfookfgr gks vkSj mlds ekrk firk ,oa HkkbZ&cgu mlh ij vkfJr gksa rFkk lsokdky esa ,sls ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q gks tk; rks oSlh ifjfLFkfr esa mldh fo/kok eka] NksVk HkkbZ ,oa vfookfgr NksVh cgu dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq vkfJr ekuk tk,xkA ¼2½ ykirk ljdkjh lsodksa ds ekeys esa Hkh] fuEukafdr 'krksZa ds v/khu] vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj ds ykHk dh vuqekU;rk gksxh%& ¼d½ ljdkjh lsod ds ykirk gksus dh frfFk ls nks o"kksZa ds chr tkus ds ckn vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq vuqjks/k ij fopkj gks ldrk gS] c'krsZ fd%& ¼i½ iqfyl Fkkuk es bl laca/k esa ,d izkFkfedh ntZ fd;k x;k gks ¼ii½ ykirk O;fDr dk irk py ikuk dfBu gks] vkSj ¼iii½ l{ke izkf/kdkj ;g eglwl djsa fd ekeyk lR; gSA ¼[k½ ;g ykHk ,sls ljdkjh lsodksa ds ekeys esa vuqekU; ugha gksxk%& 4 ¼i½ ftls ykirk gksus dh frfFk ls nks o"kksZ ds vanj lsokfuo`r gksuk gS ;k ¼ii½ ftl ij /kks[kk/kM+h djus dk lansg gks] ;k fdlh vkradoknh laxBu esa 'kkfey gksus dk lansg gks] ;k fons'k pys tkus dk lansg gksA ¼x½ vU; ds ekeyksa dh rjg ykirk ljdkjh lsods ds ekeys esa Hkh vuqdEik fu;qfDr vf/kdkj dk ekeyk ugha gksxh vkSj ;g fjfDr;ksa dh miyC/krk lfgr] ,slh fu;qfDr ds fy, fu/kkZfjr lHkh 'krksZa ds iwjk gkasus ij gh gks ldsxhA ¼?k½ ,sls vuqjks/k ij fopkj djrs le; iqfyl vuqla/kku ds ifj.kkeksa dks Hkh /;ku esa j[kk tk;sxkA ¼3½ ykirk ljdkjh lsod ds vkfJr dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr dj fy;s tkus ds ckn ykirk ljdkjh lsod ds iqu% izdV gks tkus ij vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr muds vkfJr dh lsok Lor% lekIr le>h tk;sxhA ijUrq ,sls vkfJr ls] muds }kjk dRrZO; dh vof/k ds fy, Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dh olwyh ugha dh tk;sxhA ykirk ljdkjh lsod ds izdV gksus ,oa ;ksxnku nsus ij l{ke izkf/kdkj }kjk mudk ;ksxnku Lohdkj djrs gq, mUgsa fuyafcr dj muds fo:n~/k fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e 76 ds vkyksd esa vuf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr ds fy, fu;ekuqlj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pykdj leqfpr dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA 4- bl foHkkx ds Kkikad&13293 fnukad 05-10-91 dh dafMdk&¼1½ ¼x½ ,oa ¼?k½ mi;qZDr gn rd la'kksf/kr le>h tk;sxh] vkSj Kkikad 281 fnukad 01-02-2006 ,oa i=kad 4265 fnukad 04-12-07 rn~uqlkj vodzfer le>s tk;saxsA** Moreover this matter has also been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 2004(1) PLJR 36, where it has been held that the period of limitation shall commence only on completion of seven years from the date, the employee was missing. That being so, this Court would quash the order as contained in Annexure-8 passed by the District Compassionate Appointment 5 Committee in its meeting held on 02.07.2010, so far it relates to the petitioner and remit the matter back for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner by the Committee strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and the District Compassionate Appointment Committee would be free to examine the eligibility conditions of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground in view of the circular of the State Government dated 05.10.1991 as modified by the circular dated 31.10.2008. Such exercise however, must be completed by the competent authority within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)