IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9314 of 2002 1.MOST.PARVATI DEVI,W/O LATE SOBHA BAHADUR, VILLAGE+P.O.BHERIYA RAHIKA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 2.DAL BAHADUR THAPA, S/O LATE SOBHA BAHADUR OF VILLAGE+P.O. BHERIYA RAHIKA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE D.G. CUM-I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE D.I.G. (PERSONNEL) BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE D.I.G.PURNIA RANGE, PURNIA. 5.THE S.P. PURNIA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04/ 28.03.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The records of this case would bear it out that the limited prayer of petitioner no. 2 for appointment on a class-IV post on compassionate ground cannot be allowed, inasmuch as, a dispute has been raised as with regard to the receipt of the original application filed by the petitioners in the year 1989. A thorough inquiry made by the Office of Director General of Police in this regard has revealed that no such application was actually received in the year 1989 and therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed. In the counter affidavit, it has 2 also been explained that the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of petitioner no. 2 was held to be barred by limitation of five years as per the Government policy. It is not in doubt that the father of the petitioner no. 2 died on 16.04.1988, and the claim of the petitioner that they had filed an application for compassionate appointment in the year 1989 and the same had remained pending till the date of filing of filing of this application on 12.08.2002 ,will itself expose that the petitioners were never serious with regard to the alleged claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2. The family of deceased employee which had lost its bread earner in the year 1988 and had a ray of hope of being rehabilitated by appointment on compassionate ground could not have remained silent for the period over next 14 years. The delay in the part of the petitioners thus in moving this Court so far it relates to initiating the cause of action in the year 1988 must be held to be fatal. As with regard to the second aspect of 3 rejection of the case of the petitioners on the ground of subsequent application filed to be barred by limitation, this Court must hold that since the policy of the Government in vogue itself prescribed the period of limitation of only five years and not condonable in any circumstances, there would be no error in the consequential decision taken by the authority. Under such circumstances, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)