IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.736 of 2008 ------- Om Nath Choudhary, Son of Late Raghunath Choudhary, resident of Village Souraji, Police Station Mirganj, District Gopalganj. ….. petitioner/appellant Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidhuit Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhuit Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Pramandal, Electric Supply Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Deputy Personnel Director, Tirhut Division, Electric Supply Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Gopalganj. ….. Respondents- Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : M/s Ram Chandra Singh, Jitendra Kumar Singh & Sanjay Kumar, Advocates For the respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 15th October, 2008 We heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents. 2. Raghu Nath Choudhary, the appellant’s father, was unskilled Khalasi in Bihar State Electricity Board. He died in harness on 14th December, 1995. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 12th February, 1998. Since the appellant was non- - 2 - matriculate, as per the guidelines, his age was required to be verified by the medical Board. The medical Board, after his medical examination, on 03rd November, 1999 assessed his age 15-16 years. Based on the finding of the medical Board, vide communication dated 06th June, 2001, the appellant was informed that since he had not completed 18 years of age, he could not be given appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant is said to have made a representation to the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board for giving him appointment on compassionate ground and when nothing was done, he approached this court by filing a writ petition in the month of August, 2005. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the single judge vide his order dated 24th July, 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. That appointment on compassionate ground is by way of an exception to the general mode of recruitment and is guided by the rules or guidelines framed by the employer for that purpose is not in dispute. That the Bihar State Electricity Board has framed the guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground is an admitted position. As per the relevant provision in the guidelines, the application for appointment on compassionate ground, by a dependent of a deceased employee, has to be made within five years of the death of the employee. If the dependent son or daughter is minor at the time of death of employee and spouse of the said deceased employee is either not desirous of seeking appointment on compassionate ground - 3 - or does not fulfill the eligibility, then such information has to be given by the spouse to the employer within five years of the death of the employee. Such information has to be by way of an affidavit, only then the application of the dependent son or daughter would be considered upon his or her attaining majority. 4. That the procedure prescribed in the guidelines has not been followed is apparent from the fact that although the employee died on 14th December, 1995, no information was given by the appellant’s mother to the Board within five years that the appellant was minor at the time of death of the employee and that she was not desirous of seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant’s mother for the first time on 24th February, 2003 intimated to the Board that employment could be given to her son. As a matter of fact, if she wanted the employment to be given to her son, who happened to be minor at the time of death of the employee, she ought to have given information by way of affidavit within five years of the death of her husband that she was not desirous of securing appointment on compassionate ground and the claim of her minor son be considered upon his attaining majority, which she never did. Moreover, the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Board on 06th June, 2001, but the appellant approached this court after a long delay of four years. The explanation that the appellant made a representation to the Chairman hardly justifies this long delay in a matter of appointment on compassionate ground. - 4 - 5. Needless to say, and as has been repeatedly said, that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the ordinary mode of recruitment. It is to enable the dependent of the deceased employee to tide over financial crisis that has occurred because of sudden death of the earning member of the family. In the present case, the employee died on 14th December, 1995; the claim of the appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on 06th June, 2001 and the appellant approached this court in the month of August, 2005. At this distance of time, it would be unjustified to show any indulgence to the appellant. 6. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd and others, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 549, has no application to the fact- situation of the present case. 7. The consideration of the matter by the single judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by us. LPA is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil