IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3088 of 2008 NITESH KUMAR MISHRA, son of late Om Prakash Mishra, resident of village Sardha, P.S. Muffasil, District Saran at Chapra … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director-in- charge, Health Service, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, T.B. Administration and Training Centre, Agamkuan, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Patna … Respondents ----------- 2. 19.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the impugned order dated 9.10.2006, whereby and whereunder the claim of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected holding it to be time barred. The petitioner has also prayed for a consequential relief for issuance of a direction for appointing him on compassionate ground. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the mother of the petitioner soonafter the death of the father of the petitioner on 21.2.1992 had filed an application but when no action was taken on such application mother of the petitioner 2 had given up her claim by seeking appointment of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner’s formal application seeking compassionate appointment will date back to the date of filing of the application by her mother. Taking this a cue counsel would proceed to submit that the reason given in the impugned order holding the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground to be time barred, is based on non est and non-existent ground. In the considered opinion of this Court such plea of the petitioner has been noticed only for its being rejected. Admittedly the petitioner was aged about five years (his date of birth being 16.5.1987) when his father died on 21.2.1992. The petitioner, therefore, was a minor either on the date of death of his father or even within the period of limitation of five years prescribed under the Government circular for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner, therefore, even on 20.2.1997 when the period of limitation for filing application on compassionate ground had expired was a minor 3 being aged about ten years. In terms of the Government resolution dated 5.10.1991 the petitioner, therefore, was ineligible for appointment in Government service on account of his remaining minor. The view taken, therefore, by the respondents in the impugned order holding the petitioner’s application filed subsequently after attaining majority to be time barred does not suffer from any error and therefore, this writ application for either of the relief must be rejected as law on this aspect stands settled in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414. The remaining argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no action was taken on the application of the mother of the petitioner cannot be looked into by this Court for two reasons, namely, mother is not the petitioner and no direction has been sought from this Court for appointment of mother on compassionate ground. Additionally this Court would find that the mother herself had voluntarily 4 given up her claim for appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, a writ petition relating to a cause of action of the year 1992 could not have been maintained by the mother if she had chosen to file this writ application. As the relief in this writ application is squarely covering the case of the petitioner alone and he was ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground this Court has no option but to dismiss this writ application. It is ordered accordingly. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/