IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7872 of 2011 RAJESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE BHAGWAN DAS, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA, TAR BANGLA, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION, DEHRI, DISTRICT ROHTAS. .....PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 3. THE FINANCE CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS DEHRI ON SONE, AREA ELECTYRICITY SUPPLY, ROHTAS. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, DEHRI ON SONE, ELECRCITY SUPPLY, ROHTAS. 6. THE SUPERINGTENDNIG ENGINEER, ELECTYRICITY SUPPLY, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEHRI ON SONE, AREA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, ROHTAS. ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners:- Mr. Arun Kuamr Singh No. 4, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Singh, Adv. For the BSEB:- Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv. 2 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner prays for quashing of the letter no. 1699 dated 11.05.2010 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the Bihar State Electricity Board upon the death of his mother while in service has been rejected. In the impugned letter dated 11.05.2010, it is stated that the petitioner's application has been forwarded by concerned authority on 11.12.2009 whereas the employee died on 25.05.1995. The other ground mentioned is that the petitioner is not the son of the deceased, rather he is the son of sister of the deceased employee. This Court does not consider it at all necessary to go into the second question as to whether an adopted son can be granted compassionate appointment. As the late employee had died much earlier, in my view an application for compassionate appointment filed after more than 14 years of the death of the deceased employee is sufficient ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner. As held by the Apex Court in the Case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana and others: 1994(4) SCC 138, compassionate appointment cannot be granted irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee. It has been clearly held that it is not a grant of a post for a post which would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution as the same would amount to an appointment on the ground of descent prohibited therein, rather sole purpose is to enable the family of the deceased employee to meet the sudden financial hardship caused on the death of the sole bread earner. It cannot be said that after 14 years, or at present 16 years, that there is any immediate financial hardship to the family on account of the death of the employee. If the petitioner has survived for 14 years or 16 years it shows that the financial hardship is not of such of nature which needs a direction of this Court to the respondent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances there does not appear to be any merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Bhardwaj ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )