IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8092 of 2006 RAM NARESH RAI, son of late Babu Lal Rai, resident of village Dostiyan, P.S. Lakhaura, District East Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari 3. The Suptd. of Police, East Champaran at Motihari 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Motihari, District East Champaran 5. The Anchal Padadhikari, Motihari Anchal, Motihari, District East Champaran 6. The Officer In-charge, Lakhaura, P.S. District East Champaran 7. Smt. Rani Wati Devi, wife of Shri Nand Ji Singh, resident of village Lakhaura, Ganesh Tola, P.S. Lakhaura, District East Champaran … Respondents ----------- 3. 30.3.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction for his appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Dafadar by taking a plea that his father Babu Lal Rai had died in harness in the year 1985 and as such, even when the petitioner was born in the year 1984 he after becoming major in the year 2002 had a subsisting right of his being appointed on compassionate ground. In this context Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to an order of the Division Bench dated 15.2.1984 whereby and whereunder the 2 order of appointment continuation and termination of the father of the petitioner on the post of Dafadar even though specifically challenged was not interfered and the matter was remitted back for a further enquiry for passing a fresh order. Mr. Kumar would submit that the order of this Court dated 15.2.1984 was not given effect to and no fresh order after holding enquiry was filed in the case of the father of the petitioner and therefore, the father of the petitioner would be deemed to have died in harness on 20.11.1985. He would, accordingly, submit that as the father of the petitioner was in Government service as on 20.11.1985, the petitioner being his son would get a right for his being considered for his appointment on compassionate ground. In this case the respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein specific plea has been taken that the father of the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 15.12.1979 and since this Court had never quashed such order of termination of the father of the petitioner even in the judgment by an order dated 3 15.2.1984, the petitioner cannot claim to be a son of a Government servant who had died in harness. Counsel for the State in this regard has also submitted that without prejudice to the aforementioned contention the writ application even otherwise is not maintainable, inasmuch as the cause of action for the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground had arisen on the date of death of his father being 20.11.1985 but this writ application has been filed on 12.7.2006 i.e. after 21 years. Mr. Kumar, however, has tried to meet the aforementioned objection of the learned counsel for the State by taking a plea that since the petitioner himself was born in the year 1984 and became major only in the year 2002, he could not have approached the authority for his appointment on compassionate ground prior to 2002. In the considered opinion of this Court learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct in pressing the claim of the petitioner on compassionate ground as a matter of right after a long delay of more 4 than 21 years. If the petitioner was a minor (aged about one year) at the time of death of his father in the year 1985 he was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground even in the period of limitation in which such application could have been filed. Under the Government policy of compassionate appointment earlier the period of limitation was two years from the date of death which got extended only in the year 1989 to the period of five years. Thus, the father of the petitioner having died in the year 1985 and the petitioner having acquired his majority only in the year 2002, the petitioner even otherwise was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground as he did not fulfill the requisite qualification laid down in the Government policy. Reference in this connection may be made to judgment of division bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414. Additionally, as the father of the petitioner had no longer remained in service after 1979 and did not die in the year 1985 while continuing in Government service, his 5 son, the petitioner, cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as the Government employee having been dismissed looses his right for consideration for appointment of his dependent on compassionate ground. Mr. Kumar in view of the aforementioned view taken by the Court had ultimately submitted that the respondents should be directed at least to initiate a selection process for filling up the post of Dafadar which was occupied by his father on regular basis so that in such selection the case of the petitioner could also be considered on merit along with other eligible candidates. The respondents however have not specifically addressed themselves on this issue in their counter affidavit as no such facts have been pleaded by the petitioner in his writ application and therefore, all that can be observed by this Court is that if the vacancy created on account of termination of service of the petitioner in the year 1979 on the post of Dafadar has not been filled up till date and no one has been appointed on the post on 6 which he was working, the respondents will ofcourse be under obligation to initiate a fresh selection process in which the cases of all the eligible persons including the petitioner (if eligible) will be considered in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/