IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16886 of 2007 Mosmat Urmila Devi, W/o late Jay Prakash Mishra, D/o late Shyam Kishore Mishra, R/o Mohalla Quila, P.S. Bettiah Town, District West Champaran. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director Health Services, Bihar Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. Additional Director, Health Services cum Controlling Officer, Main Malariya Office, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Malariya Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah. 5. District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 15.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground has to be rejected, inasmuch as, the petitioner at the time of death of her father was married daughter, who under the policy framed by the State Government dated 5.10.1991, was not eligible for such compassionate appointment. The said policy only envisages appointment of a wife followed by son then unmarried daughter or lastly widow of the pre-deceased son. In that order, the petitioner was definitely not in the aforementioned four categories and, therefore, the solitary plea being now taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 that since the petitioner later on became widow, she would be qualified and become eligible for consideration on compassionate ground, has to be again noted for its being rejected. A widow daughter is not included in the category though the widow of the pre- deceased son is. Therefore, unless the petitioner could have challenged the policy itself and could have also sustained her such challenge, she cannot be appointed even on the ground of being a widow daughter. As a matter of fact, this Court would find it difficult to even otherwise entertain this writ application as the same has been filed after inordinate delay of literally twelve years, inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner died in the year 1995 and this writ application has been filed on 18.12.2007. The only explanation advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was waiting disposal of her case and that she was filing representation or that the matter was under consideration of the authority vide Annexure- 7, in no way would explain the delay, 3 inasmuch as, the cause of action, if any to the petitioner after death of her father, arose in the year 1995 and she could not have filed this writ petitioner after a period of twelve years taking plea of pendency her representation. In any event, the petitioner has no case even on merit because she does not fall in the aforementioned prescribed category of dependants under the government policy of compassionate ground and hence, this Court would find it difficult to entertain such a wholly belated writ application. Thus, this writ application has to be dismissed both on account of delay and laches as also on merit. It is ordered accordingly. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)