IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13521 of 2001 RAFI MIAN, son of Late Harif Mian, resident of village- Paduma Chapara, P.S. Kesharia, District- East Champaran, Motihari. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The Anchaladhikari, Kesharia, East Champaran, Motihari. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kesharia, East Champaran, Motihari. 7. Biltu Singh, son of Kishun Singh, resident of village- Kesharia, P.S. Kesharia, District- East Champaran, Motihari … Respondents. ----------- 6. 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application while seeking quashing of the order dated 10.4.2000 rejecting his claim for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground is also for a consequential direction for his such appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relies on a report submitted by Anchal Adhikari dated 25.9.1992 to show that the reasons given in the impugned order as with regard to father of the petitioner being not an employee dying in harness on account of his not remaining in employment after 1989, as a village Chaukidar, suffers 2 from an apparent error of record. In this context, he has also submitted that the engagement of Biltu Singh as replacement Chaukidar in the year 1989 was wholly unjustified inasmuch as the same was never approved by the competent authority. The respondents have filed their counter- affidavit and have by enclosing the application of father of the petitioner dated 24.10.1988 voluntarily relinquishing the post of Chaukidar on account of his becoming ineligible and incompetent to work on the post of Chaukidar have sought to explain that he did continue in service after 1988 as such he cannot be said to have died while continuing in government service much less in harness. In this context it has also been stated that the Officer-in-charge of Kesariya Police Station also having made due examination of the aforesaid request of the father of the petitioner had submitted his own recommendation to Sub-divisional Officer on 1.9.1988 wherein after abandoning the work by father of the petitioner on his physical incapacity, he had recommended for the engagement of one Biltu Singh on the post of Chaukidar vacated by the father of the petitioner. 3 In the considered opinion of this Court, there are sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the father of the petitioner had discontinued to remain in service as a village chaukidar and was replaced by Biltu Singh on the basis of recommendations of Sub-divisional Officer and Superintendent of Police. Merely because there is no order of the Collector of the District approving such appointment of Biltu Singh on the post of Chaukidar will not mean that the father of the petitioner had continued to work on the post of Chaukidar. In any event on the basis of materials on record, it becomes clear that there is a serious dispute with regard to the father of petitioner dying in harness inasmuch as his date of death is said to be 18.5.1994 whereas the respondents have claimed that he had voluntarily abandoned his service in the year 1988 on account of his physical incapacity. The dispute as to whether father of the petitioner was forcibly removed or had voluntarily left the service cannot be made a subject matter of adjudication of this case inasmuch as the competent authority while examining the case of appointment on compassionate ground has on the basis of 4 records held that the father of the petitioner having not died while continuing in government service, the petitioner was ineligible for such appointment. Moreover it has to be also kept in mind that only such chaukidars who were continuing in service as on 1.1.1990 came to be recognized as government servant. Thus when the service of the father of the petitioner was never recognized by the government as a chaukidar for his being treated as government servant as on 1.1.1990, there would be no question of appointment of his son, the petitioner, on compassionate ground. Additionally, this Court would find that the cause of action for the petitioner as with regard to his appointment on compassionate ground had arisen if not on any other date, at least on 18.5.1994, when his father had died. If the petitioner had however kept himself busy in getting an order on his application as a result whereof the impugned order came to be passed on 10.4.2000, this Court after 17 years of the death of the father of the petitioner would not like to reopen the issue, specially when there is a serious dispute as with regard to the father of the petitioner being ever a government servant. 5 That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)