IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.855 of 2008 ***** Ranjit Kumar Singh, son of late Yogendra singh, resident of village- Thepha, P.S.-Ziradei, Distt.-Siwan. …. …. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Registrar, Co-Operative Society Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Saran Division, Chapra. 4. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 5. The Managing Director, the Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Siwan. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Prabhakar Singh @ Anil, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. N. Singh ----------- Dated, the 1st December, 2008. Counsel for the appellant made two fold submission viz; (one) that since the appellant has been working in the post of grade-IV right from his joining the service, the respondents are estopped by equitable estoppel from contending that appellant is not entitled to the post of Grade- IV, and (two) that even otherwise, having worked on grade-IV post, the appellant is entitled to the said grade. 2. We are afraid, the contentions are misplaced and do not deserve to be accepted. That the appellant was appointed on compassionate ground is not in dispute. That the appellant was - 2 - appointed as Peon (Class IV) is reflected from the office order dated 4th June, 1996, which records that he was appointed as Peon. Even if we assume that there is some mistake in the scale in the office order, it cannot be said that appellant was not appointed on class IV post but class III post. Since the appellant was appointed on compassionate ground and that too in the category of Peon i.e. Class-IV category, obviously, he was entitled to lowest grade of Class-IV category at the time of his appointment. The claim of the appellant seems to be founded on assumption and presumption, which has rightly been negated by the Single Judge. 3. Moreover, the appellant was given appointment on compassionate ground on 4th June, 1996. For almost nine years he had no grievance save and except few representations made here and there, the first of such representation being as late as in the year 2007, we are afraid, such belated claim even otherwise could not have been entertained. 4. All in all, dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge is not legally flawed. 5. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ J. N. Singh, J Pawan/-