IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11982 of 2006 SUDHIR KUMAR YADAV, son of late Singeshwr Rai, resident of village & P.O. & P.S.Daudpur, Dist. Saran-petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Level Compassionate Committee, Saran at Chapra 4.The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Project Chapra------------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner:M/S Tej Bahadur Singh,Sr.Advocate Ram Kishore Singh,Advocate For the State :Mr.Ajay Kumar Sharna,A.C.to AAG III ---- 2. 12.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father Singeshwar Rai, who, as a Government servant, died in harness on 10.7.1998. The elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Yadav, filed an application for compassionate appointment along with an affidavit of his mother which was considered by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 25.6.2001 and a recommendation dated 25.7.2001 was sent to the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. However, the matter was lingered and no actual appointment was made and on 16.11.2005 the said Ashok Kumar Yadav also died. Thereafter the petitioner filed 2 his application for compassionate appointment in January, 2006 along with an affidavit of his mother. The said application has been rejected on the ground that it was beyond the period of five years after the death of his father which is the maximum period prescribed in the relevant circular of the State Government. The admitted fact in the writ petition is that the petitioner was born on 5.4.1988 and completed 18 years of age on 5.4.2006. At the time of death of his father on 10.7.1988 he was just 10 years old and was ineligible for Government employment for the next eight years. Hence within the maximum period of five years he could not have filed an application so as to be eligible for the purpose of getting compassionate appointment. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others : (1994) 4 SCC 138 it is evident that an appointment on compassionate ground is not an offer of a post for a post on the ground of descent on account of the death of the deceased employee rather the whole purpose is to meet the immediate financial crisis due to the death of the sole bread earner in the family. It has been clearly held that such appointment 3 cannot be kept pending indefinitely until the minor attains his majority. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, in any case, irrespective of the fact that his elder brother earlier had applied, would not be entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground within the period prescribed for filing an application with respect to the same. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no merit in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/