IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12094 of 2007 Sanjeet Kumar Sinha, son of late Ravindra Nath Sinha, resident of Village Kochgaon, P.O. + P.S. Warsaliganj in the district of Nawadah. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division No.2, Gaya. 4. The District Appointment Committee, Gaya through its Chairman cum District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. The Chairman, District Compassionate Committee cum District Magistrate, Gaya. ----------- Respondents ----------- 2 8.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner’s prayer for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee by holding the application filed by the petitioner to be time barred. Counsel for the petitioner relying, on the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Noor Alam Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2007(4)PLJR 200 would submit that the case of the petitioner ought to have not been rejected, inasmuch as, it is the admitted fact that the father of the petitioner went 2 missing in the year 1990 and his presumptive death, in terms of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, could be known only in the year 1997. He would, therefore, submit that the application filed by the petitioner in the year 2005 ought to have been entertained and considered on merit. In the considered opinion of this Court, once this fact is admitted that the father of the petitioner went missing on 28.9.1990, his presumptive death after seven years in terms of Section 108 of the Evidence Act will be assumed with effect from 28.9.1997. Any dependent of such a Government servant, who would be missing for a period of seven years, would, therefore, be required to file an application within a period of five years from the presumed date of death and admittedly, the petitioner did not file the application in the prescribed proforma within that period of five years. In fact, from Annexure-8 filed by the petitioner, it would be clear that the same was filed on 12.4.2006. Thus such application of the petitioner for seeking appointment on 3 compassionate ground was clearly barred by limitation of five years. This aspect of the matter, in fact, has been considered by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported 2005(2)PLJR 155, wherein, it was held that:- “It is true that there is a limit for making application for compassionate appointment. This limit, however, will start running from the date when the period of presumption will come to an end and not on the date of the death for by reason of a fiction of the statute made through the legislative mandate, although the death has occurred, the cognizance thereof can be taken after expiry of the time specified.” Judged in this background if the petitioner had filed his application in the prescribed proforma even by 27.9.2002, his case of compassionate appointment could have been considered by treating his application to have been filed within the prescribed period of time. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Noor 4 Alam (supra) is also wholly misplaced inasmuch as in that case the application for compassionate ground had been admittedly filed within five years of presumption death an aspect clarified by this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi (supra). Thus for the reasons recorded above this Court would find that the decision taken by the authority while rejecting the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground does not suffer from any error. That being so, this application, is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)