IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9333 of 2009 SANJEEV KUMAR SINHA, S/o Late Thakur Prasad Mandal, R/o Village-Shailendra P.S.-Rampur, District-Bhagalpur. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, at Bhagalpur. 3. The District Establishment Committee through its Chairman Collector, Bhagalpur. 4. The District Compassionate Committee, Bhagalpur. 5. The Chief Secretary Primary Education Department, Bihar at Patna. 6. The Educational Minister, Human Resources Department, Bihar at Patna. 7. The Collector, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 8. The District Superintendent of Educational Department at Bhagalpur. ……….Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Anupa Nand Jha, Adv. For the State : Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar (G.P.-16) 2/ 19.08.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is the son of Late Thakur Prasad Mandal who died in harness on 5.6.1981 while working as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School Gopalichak, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur. Petitioner’s case is that at the time of his father’s death he was 9 years and 21 days old as such his mother filed an application for compassionate appointment on his behalf in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur on 21.1.1981. That matter remained pending and no decision was taken, as such when the petitioner became major he again filed application on 1.10.2001 for compassionate appointment in the format provided for filing such application. Admittedly the petitioner filed his application for compassionate appointment at - 2 - the age of 29 years, after more than 20 years of his father’s death. In the given circumstance the case of petitioner is that respondents are arbitrarily not taking decision on his application and his right to be appointed on compassionate ground is being ignored illegally. Question which arises for consideration, whether any application for compassionate appointment needs consideration after more than 20 years of the death of the government employee who dies in harness. Secondly, whether at all application filed by the petitioner in the year 2001 for compassionate appointment should have been considered when it was filed after more than 20 years of the death of his father and more than 10 years after he gained majority, specially when the law relating to compassionate appointment has changed much with the passing of the time. In each cases of death of a government employee in harness his dependents cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. The latest view in this regard is that even if, application is filed within the prescribed time, if the family has got other source of income for survival, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be allowed. In the present case, petitioner was a minor at the time when his father died as such not eligible for filing any application for compassionate appointment. Application filed on his behalf by his mother could not have been entertained, as a - 3 - minor, who has not attained majority can claim for appointment in a government job. Appointed in a government job means entering into a contract for discharging duties of the post. A minor cannot enter into a contract as such only after attaining the age of majority, one can enter into a government service. When petitioner was only 9 years old, any application filed by him or on his behalf could not have been considered for appointment and rightly it was not considered at the initial stage. The second part of petitioner’s case started, after he became 18 years of age. He could have filed an application for appointment but he did not choose to file any such application on attaining the majority. It seems that he was looking for some other attractive proposals and finally when he failed to get any at the age of 29 years he filed his application for compassionate appointment. Since application was filed ten years after attaining majority, such application could have been treated as bar by limitation. As per government guidelines/circular relating to compassionate appointment, five years time is allowed for filing such applications. Petitioner’s application was beyond that period, as such even if no decision was taken on his application, no illegality was committed by the respondents. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions reported in 2007(1) PLJR 672, 1990 (2) PLJR 668 and 2007 (4) PLJR 151, after going - 4 - through all these decisions, I find that none of these decisions have any application in this case. Compassionate appointment is certainly a beneficial and benevolent legislation. The objective behind such legislation was to give financial support to such family whose bread earner dies suddenly during his service career and also that the family has no other source of financial assistance. In the present case, the family of the petitioner has survived for 20 years and circumstance in this regard is also against the petitioner. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)