IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7572 of 2006 RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY S/o Late Suryapal Pandey, resident of Village Gobindpur, P.S. Sahpur, District- Bhojpur. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director (Indigenous Medicine) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. 3. Addl. District Magistrate, Establishment, Bhojpur, Ara. 4. District Deshi Medical Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. 5. The District Compassionate Committee, Ara, Bhojpur through the District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 7/ 20.11.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make the District Compassionate Committee, as party respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2006 passed by District Compassionate Appointment Committee, as contained in Annexure-8, whereby the application of the petitioner for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected, as time barred. The father of the petitioner died while serving as Ayurvedic Compounder on 18.11.1998. Pursuant to death of Suryapal Pandey, his eldest son Om Prakash Pandey applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents even recommended for his appointment on Class III post. However, subsequently the certificate of Om Prakash Pandey was found to be forged and as such his recommendation was cancelled. Thereafter the petitioner, who happens to be the second son of the deceased Suryapal Pandey found opportunity for employment and applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee found that though the application of petitioner was within the time, it was addressed to it directly instead of routing it through appropriate officer, - 2 - who would be the District Indigenous Medicine Officer, Bhojpur. The application, as such was returned to move appropriately. The petitioner again made a representation through appropriate channel, which was received by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 31.08.2004, after more than five years of death of his father, who died on 18.11.1998. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejected the application as time barred. The petitioner submits that the authorities were too technical in rejecting the application as time barred. It was not rejected on merit. The counsel for the State submits that compassionate appointment is provided to meet immediate financial hardship faced by the family on account of death of an earning member. It appears that the first son of the deceased employee had submitted his application in time and he was also recommended for appointment by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. Subsequently, it transpires that his documents were found forged and as such the recommendation was cancelled. The second son then applied for his employment in place of his deceased father. However, though his application was in time, he applied directly to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee instead of routing his application through proper channel. The application was, accordingly, returned by the District Compassionate appointment Committee. The petitioner thereafter applied through proper channel. However, the application routed through the proper channel was received on 01.08.2004 beyond a period of five years. - 3 - It is not a case that the application of the petitioner was received before the District compassionate Appointment Committee after expiry of limitation period of five years of death of his father. The earlier application was not routed through the proper channel. The petitioner thereafter again sent his application this time routing through the proper channel. In such circumstances, the District compassionate Appointment Committee ought not to have rejected the application as time barred. The scheme of the Government is to protect the family of its employees, who died while in service. Such benevolent scheme ought not to be stifled on too technical a ground. In the circumstances, the matter is remitted to the District compassionate Appointment Committee for consideration on the merit of the application for compassionate appointment. This Court wants to make it clear that it is not making any opinion on the merit of the application of the petitioner. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)