IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14327 of 2006 SHYAMANAND JHA, son of lat Shardanand Jha, resident of village Barahi, P.S.Mauhatta, District Saharsa--------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna 2.The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Saharsa 3.The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Circle, Saharsa 4.The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department Saharsa 5.The Circle Officer, Nauhatta, Saharsa------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Rana Ishwar Chandra,Advocate For the State : Mr.Ajit Kumar,A.C. to G.P.20 ---- 2. 11.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the District Compassionate Committee dated 20.12.2000 issued vide Memo No. 5- 1/Sthapna,Saharsa dated 5.1.2001 (Annexure-6) by which the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and for a further direction to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner, who was an employee of the State Government, died on 10.11.1992. The petitioner was born on 27.12.1977 and attained majority on 27.12.1995 and thereafter filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 14.1.1997, but his claim was rejected by the District Compassionate 2 Committee in its meeting dated 20.12.2000 for the reason that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the date of death of his father. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the writ application on 23.11.2006. There can hardly be any doubt that the order passed by the District Compassionate Committee is not based upon correct reasoning as under the relevant Government Circulars the dependent has a right to apply for appointment on compassionate ground within five years of the date of death of the employee and if the dependant was a minor on the date of death of his father but he attains majority within the period of five years then his case cannot be rejected on the said ground. However, despite the aforesaid position of law this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner as even after rejection of the case of the petitioner by order dated 20.12.2000 the petitioner has chosen to sleep over the matter for six years before filing the writ application in this Court. The father of the petitioner had died more than 17 years back. It is settled proposition in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others : (1994) 4 3 SCC 138 that a claim for compassionate appointment does not remain open indefinitely and cannot be granted after the lapse of a substantial number of years. In this case the petitioner approached this Court six years after the rejection of his application and more than 14 years after the death of his father and no explanation for the same is to be found any where in the application. If the family of the deceased Government employee survives for such a long period of time, there can be no occasion to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner at this belated stage. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/