IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.688 of 2008 1. Rita Jha, wife of late Jaibir Jha, resident of Villge & Post Sanahpur, P.S. Singhawar, Dist. Darbhanga at present C/o Sri Navin Jha, resident of Village Chainpur, Dharharwa, via Runnisaidur, P.S. Aurai, Dist. Muzaffarpur. 2. Mamta Jha, wife of Sri Navin Kumar, resident of Village Chainpur Dharharwa, Via Runnisaidpur, P.S. Aurai, Dist. Muzaffarpur. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Water and Resources, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 2. The Chief Engineer, Deptt. of Water Resources, Purnea. 3. Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Salmari, Distt. Kaithar. ------- Respondents ----------- 2 18.4.2011 Heard Mr. Anil Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jha, learned A.C. to G.A.-10 for the State. The prayer of the petitioner no.1 for quashing the impugned order dated 5.2.2007 (Annexure-1) has to be rejected for a simple reason that she had in her application dated 10.11.2006 sought appointment of her married daughter after the death of her husband on 3.3.2005. Under the Government policy dated 5.10.1991, a married daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the Executive Engineer, under whom the husband of the petitioner no.1 was working, was competent to return the 2 application filed by the petitioner no.1 refusing to forward it for further consideration before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, inasmuch as, the said authority was fully empowered to look into the aspect as to whether the application for compassionate appointment was maintainable. Once such an application was in teeth of the eligibility criteria as laid down in the Government policy, the decision taken by the Executive Engineer of returning the application does not suffer from any infirmity. The submission that the Executive Engineer could not have returned the application and must have forwarded the same to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee has to be only noted for its being rejected, inasmuch as, the Executive Engineer was not a post-office whose job was to forward the application even when he was satisfied that the petitioner’s application seeking appointment on compassionate ground of his married daughter was contrary to the Government decision. Counsel for the petitioners then would 3 submit that the petitioner no.1 should be given liberty to file an application for her own appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as, she, being the wife of the deceased employee, would qualify for such appointment. This Court would find it difficult to now allow the petitioner no.1 to do so, inasmuch as, the petitioner no.1 consciously had elected the petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground and had not put her own case for appointment on compassionate ground. The limitation period of five years having been concluded way back on 2nd March, 2010, this Court would find it difficult to accept the prayer of the petitioner no.1 to file her own application who is aged above 51 years. The scheme under the compassionate appointment also lays down that one must fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment, one of them being the requirement of maximum age prescribed for entry in Government service. The petitioner is now over aged by 14 years for appointment on Government service and, therefore, this 4 Court would not find it feasible in the interest of justice to now permit her to file her application for appointment on compassionate ground. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner no.1 is a physically infirm lady and has got no support from anyone. This Court fails to understand that when the petitioner no.1 has already been provided with death-cum- retirement benefit of her deceased husband and her only daughter, the petitioner no.2 has already been married, what purpose it would serve for the petitioner no.1 to now also get employment when she is getting family pension, which would be sufficient to maintain herself. Thus for all the aforementioned reasons, this Court would not find any merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)