IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA RAJ KUMAR BHUIYAN, son of late Sohrai Bhuiyan, resident of village- Ghutiya, P.S. Civil Aerodrome, District- Gaya. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through its Chairman, Vidut BNhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Area Electricity Board, Gaya. 5. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Gaya (East). 6. Electrical Executive Engineer, East, Electric Supply Division, Gaya. --- For the petitioner: Mr. Shivaji Pandey,Senior Advocate For the B.S.E.B: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh,Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Singh,Advocate --- 5. 25.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 20.6.2005 passed by the Director of Personnel, by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected and further prays for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as skilled Khalasi in the respondent- Bihar State Electricity Board and died while he was in service on 21.12.1991. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1994 with relevant papers and the Executive Engineer by letter No.188 dated 12.2.1994 (Annexure-4) sent the same to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Gaya East, Gaya. The authorities, however, did not act upon the same for a long period of time and ultimately on 8.9.2001, the petitioner received a letter from the Deputy Director of Personnel 2 directing him to appear before the Medical Board for determination of his age on 20.9.2001 which the petitioner did. Again, he was directed by letter dated 9.1.2002 of the Personnel Officer, Gaya to report in the office of the General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya on 25.1.2002 along with all the documents, which also the petitioner did. The petitioner claims to have kept on sending several representations and reminders to the authorities. When no action was taken, he came to this Court by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by order dated 5.4.2005 with a direction to the respondent- Board to reach the application of the petitioner to its final logical conclusion as quickly as possible but not later than 12 weeks from the date of service of a copy of the order. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 20.6.2005 ( Annexure-1), the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted his application with all concerned papers within five years from the date of death of his father as required under the Standing Order No. 697 dated 30.12.1989 of the Board and further no date is mentioned either in his said application or by any authority and reference is made to the subsequent application dated 27.12.2000 which has been signed by the Electrical Superintending Engineer on 24.4.2001. It is, thus, concluded that the application of the petitioner is time barred. The second ground taken in the impugned order dated 20.6.2005 is that 14 years have elapsed since the death of the petitioner’s father and after such lapse of time, there is no justification for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground before 12.2.1994 is clearly borne out from the letter dated 12.2.1994 ( Annexure-4) sent by the Electrical Executive Engineer to the Electrial Superintending Engineer, Gaya in which it has been specifically mentioned that he has enclosed the application of the petitioner along with certain other documents. He also refers to the other subsequent letters issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, including the letter dated 8.7.2003 (Annexure- 13) in which it has been clearly stated that the petitioner had given his application for compassionate appointment through the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-division, Khizarsarai vide letter No.8 dated 8.1.1994 which had been sent by the Electrical Executive Engineer by his letter dated 188 dated 12.2.1994 to the Electrical Superintending Engineer. Similar admissions have been made in the letter dated 17.7.2003 sent by the Personnel Officer, Gaya to the General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, Gaya referring to the earlier letter, by which the petitioner’s application had been forwarded, and also referring to the fact that since it was found to be defective then subsequently it was returned to the Divisional Office on 30.8.1999 and a fresh application was submitted on 22.3.2001 with all the necessary papers. The genuineness of the aforesaid letter has not been challenged in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- Board and thus the same has to be taken as admission of the fact that the petitioner had filed the application within time permitted 4 under the Standing Order of the Board. So far as the filing of the defective application and its return are concerned, the same cannot lead to the conclusion that the application itself has been filed beyond the specified time. Since it is the authorities of the Board, who have committed delay in bringing the lacuna in his application that he was required to supply certain documents, hence, the said ground taken in the impugned order dated 20.6.2005 is non est and cannot be allowed to stand. With respect to the second ground taken in the order of rejection dated 20.6.2005, regarding lapse of 14 years, it is evident that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court by order dated 5.4.2005 has found that it is the authorities of the Board, who had not taken the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to its final logical conclusion. Thus, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, for such inaction of the authorities, the petitioner cannot be penalized. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board has sought to rely upon an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Most. Kanti Devi & another Vs. State of Bihar and others in which by its order dated 4.7. 2002 ( Annexure-D), this Court has held that if the family having survived and withstood travails of life for 15 years, there can be no justification to make appointment on compassionate ground at that stage. This Court is of the view that the earlier writ petition of the petitioner having been entertained and the authorities of the Board having been directed to take a final decision in the matter, considering 5 the laches and laxity on their part it is not open to the authorities to raise such plea at this stage. It is a trite proposition that no one can be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong . The said reasons are also held to be non est in the eye of law and not available to the authorities of the Board after the order dated 5.4.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3710 of 2005 by this Court. Thus on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 20.6.2005 is set aside having been passed upon non est grounds and the authorities of the Board are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the above directions. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)