IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5137 of 2010 1. PINTU KR.SINGH S/O LATE DADHICHI SINGH R/O VILL HARHACHA, P.S.BAHERI, DISTT-DARBHANGA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, AURANGABAD, BIHAR 4. JOINT SECRETARY WATER RESOUCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH KOEL DAM CONSTRUCTION DIVISION NO. 1 SHIVIR DALTENGANJ WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT , GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. SECRETARY/ COMMISSIONER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF JHARKHAND , RANCHI 7. CHIEF ENGINEER , WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DALTANGANJ, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND ----------- 2. 16.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks the relief to be considered for compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father in harness on 16.4.1985 while he was posted at Palamu now in the State of Jharkhand consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 1986 on which no action was taken for a decision. Merely because the State of Bihar has been now bifurcated and death may have occurred in an area which falls in the newly created State of Jharkhand, shall not defeat the obligation of the State of Bihar to 2 consider the claim. It is apparent that the delay lies at the doors of the respondents who did not take any decision on the claim of the mother of the petitioner which shall be deemed to be pending and therefore the petitioner has a right to be considered in continuation of the same. Strong reliance is placed on a communication dated 22.8.2009 of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Aurangabad to support the assertion that he has opined that it merits consideration. Counsel for the State emphasizes the delay to submit that the application merits no consideration. From the communication dated 22.8.2009, it is apparent that the application for compassionate appointment preferred by the mother of the petitioner was forwarded for consideration when it was returned on 18.4.1987 with objections. If that be the correct position, it was for the mother of the petitioner to pursue matters appropriately. Any claim for compassionate appointment arising out of the death of the deceased came to an end on 18.4.1987. There cannot be different claims for compassionate appointment by different family members, at different points of time. There has to be only one claim for compassionate appointment on the death of the deceased in harness. On the own showing of the petitioner he was 3 one year old on the date that his father died. He has applied for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2005 nearly 20 years 6 months later. To this Court, the very fact that he has survived all these years, matured into an adult aware of his rights pursuing the litigation satisfies the Court that he was not a destitute in penury with a compulsive need for compassionate appointment. He had the wherewithal to survive for these long years. In any event of the matter, he was a minor on the date of death ineligible to apply. The time period of two years within which the application was to be submitted computed from the date of death expired during his minority. On account of his minority, the petitioner cannot claim a vested right to be considered for compassionate appointment based on family lineage and the consequent right to the post. In A.I.R. 1998 SC 2612 AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 2612 "State of U.P. v. Paras Nath" noticing a claim for compassionate appointment made 17 years after the death of the deceased, the Court has observed as follows at Paragraph-5 “5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds 4 provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considrations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.” There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)