IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3572 of 2008 PARMESHWAR PASWAN, S/O LATE METHURI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-BHELWA, JEWACHHPUR, P.S. SAUR BAZAR, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ..........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE I.G. KOSHI COMMISSIONER AT SAHARSA. 4.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA. 5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHARSA. 6.THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SAHARSA. 7.THE DY. S.P. SAHARSA. 8.THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SAUR BAZAR, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 9.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAUR BAZAR. 10.THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SAUR BAZAR P.S., DISTRICT SAHARSA. 11.PARMESHWARI PASWAN, CHAUKIDAR, BIBACHHPUR PANCHAYAT, P.S SAUR BAZAR, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ............RESPONDENTS (1ST SET). .............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 19.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The solitary prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the official Respondents for his appointment on compassionate ground has to be rejected, inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner as per own showing of the petitioner had died on 09.07.1979, at a point of time, petitioner was aged about 19 years (his date of birth being 03.07.1960). The 2 petitioner however claims to have filed an application seeking compassionate appointment in the year 1996 i.e. after 17 years of the date of death of the deceased employee. As is well known in the year 1979, while the Government policy in the circular dated 12.07.1977 was in force, the period of limitation for filing an application for compassionate appointment was only two years and therefore, the petitioner’s application was clearly barred by limitation. That however would also not be the end of the problem, inasmuch as, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that actually the father of petitioner had died on 12.08.1966, whereafter the uncle of the petitioner Jagdish Paswan was appointed as a chaukidar and after his death in harness his son, Parmeshwari Paswan respondent no. 11 came to be appointed. Thus if the solitary post of Chaukidar was already filled up even before the scheme of compassionate appointment came into force for the first time in 1977 at a point of 3 time the Chaukidar was not a government servant, which was declared to be a government servant only in 1990, this Court will have no difficulty in rejecting the claim of the petitioner as his father on the date of death on 12.8.1966 or 9.7.1979 was not a government servant. All these facts would also go to show that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was definitely not maintainable both on account of the petitioner’s being ineligible on the date of death of his father as he was minor aged about six years on 12.8.1966 also due to belated filing of the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, by raising a cause of action of 1966 in the year 2008. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)