IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13591 of 2007 SHAMBHU NATH, son of late Paras Nath, resident of village Tulsi Gali, Rajgir, P.S. Rajgir, District Nalanda … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar 3. The Civil Surgeon, Gaya, Bihar … Respondents ----------- 2. 13.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected primarily on the ground that on the date of filing of such application the petitioner had already become over-age. The respondents have also taken a plea in the counter affidavit that the petitioner even otherwise was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as his condition cannot be said to be one of penury. In this regard it has been pointed out that the petitioner was the only son and in fact being the sole successor of his deceased mother, the Government employee, was paid substantial amount by way of death cum retirement benefit good enough for livelihood of one person. 2 Once this Court would find that the petitioner had become aged above 39 years on the date of death of his mother, his application for appointment on compassionate ground under the government policy contained in the circular dated 5.10.1991 had to be rejected on account of his becoming ineligible for appointment of Government service. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities ought to have condoned the maximum age limit for the petitioner again would take back to the issue of his financial condition. If the authorities, therefore, having found that the petitioner was sole successor and had received substantial amount by way of death cum retirement benefit of his mother good enough for maintaining himself, their refusal to exercise such discretion for condoning the age limit also cannot be faulted in law. The law in this regard stands settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein 3 it has been laid down that if the family of the deceased employee has got sufficient means to survive, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. That being so, this Court would not find the present case a fit case for issuance of direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/