IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11802 of 2008 JAYARAM KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAJ KISHORE SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-DHOBWAL, P.S.-JALALPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR AT ARA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, T.B.HOSPITAL, KOELWAR AT KOELWAR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 19.10.2011 Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for his compassionate appointment. His case is that his father, who was in government service, became traceless since 1996. As 7 years has expired, presumption of his death arises in law. Hence, he has filed a representation before the Director-in-Chief, a copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Prayer is to direct the Director-in-Chief to consider his representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. A counter affidavit has been filed in the case. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the mother and brother of the petitioner had earlier filed 2 application for their compassionate appointment. Mother’s application was referred to the Director-in-Chief for necessary Guidelines, vide Annexure-1. However, the subsequent application of the brother for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Committee, vide Annexure-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that earlier the wards and family members of a government employee, who became traceless, were not entitled for compassionate appointment. However, this Court held in many cases that, if the government employee was traceless for more than 7 years presumption of death arises and, therefore, after 7 years his heirs and family members became entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment. In the light of the said judgment of this Court, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department subsequently issued certain Guidelines for consideration of application of such dependents and family members of a traceless employee. This Court has considered the 3 submissions of learned counsel for the parties and has perused the records. This Court has also considered a letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department no.7146 dated 31.10.2008 by which certain Guidelines have been issued for consideration of applications for compassionate appointment in the cases of traceless employees of the Government. From this letter it appears that, in view of the judgment of this Court and in view of the policy decision of the Central Government in respect of consideration of such applications, the State Government has also taken a decision that the application of wards and family members of traceless employees has to be considered for compassionate appointment under certain conditions. The conditions inter alia are that there must be an FIR lodged in respect of Government employee having become traceless and the application must be filed within two years of his becoming traceless. Clearly these two conditions show that the application for compassionate appointment, in such circumstances, has to be filed 4 within the time limit and with due information to the police. In the present case, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been filed on 13.06.2007, i.e., almost 11 years after his father became traceless. Clearly the same is time barred. The mother of the petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment in 1996 itself, i.e. within one year of her husband becoming traceless, but at that point of time there was no provision for consideration of such application under the Government Guidelines. Hence her application could not be considered. Now the provision has been made for consideration of such applications by the said letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department issued in 2008. The said letter obviously has to be treated as applicable prospectively. Hence, neither the application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment is fit to be considered nor any order can be passed on the basis of such policy decision of the 5 government taken in 2008 for consideration of application of his mother filed in 1996. It is settled that compassionate appointment is only to mitigate the hardship of family members of the Government employee dying in harness and it is not a source of employment under the Government service violating the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is therefore dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)