IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5327 of 2008 Shil Bhadra Pravin Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 24/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2008 rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that it was belated by 17 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground for rejection suffers from an error of record as the application was not submitted 17 years after the death to qualify it as time barred and belated. This Court in C.W.J.C. No.14367/05 had granted liberty to the petitioner for representing before the respondents. Learned counsel for the State submits that this Court in C.W.J.C. No.14367/05 arrived at a finding of a belated application for compassionate appointment. The order has attained finality when the petitioner did not question it before an appellate court. The ground mentioned in the impugned order of rejection suffers from no infirmity keeping in mind the date of death and the date of consideration. In C.W.J.C. No.14367/05 this Court arrived 2 at the finding that the petitioner had made a request to be considered for compassionate appointment after his mother declined to accept the offer made to her all within the period of limitation of five years under the Government policy. The rejection on the ground that an offer of compassionate appointment was a one time measure had exhausted when the mother declined the offer was not upheld by the Court. The impugned order dated 2.5.1997 was therefore set aside. The Court then only observed that it shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioner if otherwise satisfied. No positive directions had been issued. The Writ Court in exercise of its discretionary power may set aside a wrong order and yet refuse to grant any relief on the facts of a case as held in (2000) 2 SCC 606 (Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District & Sessions Judge) at paragraph-23 as follows: “23. Considering the whole aspect of the matter we must upset the fourth criterion laid by the Advisory Committee. The appellants have been wrongly denied of their right for being considered for the post of Peon. However, in the counter-affidavit filed before us by the Additional Registrar (Legal), High Court on behalf of the District & Sessions Judge and the High Court it has been stated that the process of selection of Peon has already been completed and the candidates from the select list are being posted as Peons. In 3 this view of the matter, we would not like to disturb the appointments of the candidates already selected. Thus, though we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, we will not issue any further directions for cancelling the appointments of the candidates already selected and for starting of the whole selection process afresh. After the petitioner’s claim was rejected on merits by order dated 2.5.1997 he accepted his fate for 8 long years till he filed the earlier writ petition in 2005. The Court considered that delay as sufficient to deny the relief for compassionate appointment holding that he did not have a claim attributable to his own conduct. The order brought a finality by drawing the curtains on his claim for compassionate appointment. An appointment on compassionate grounds has its own urgency keeping in mind the sudden crisis faced by the death of the bread winner for the family. There is an urgency in the claim for compassionate appointment. A belated claim for compassionate appointment raises issues of availability of other resources for livelihood of the family of the deceased and that it was not destitute and in penury making compassionate appointment a compelling necessity. A compassionate appointment is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. Every time a compassionate 4 appointment is made Article- 16 of the Constitution of India stands violated when another has to be completely shut from the zone of consideration only because he did not have the benefit of being the descendent of a deceased. The Courts have however permitted a limited inroad under a policy when delay has been considered vital in such claims. The Court while declining relief on merits only made a pious observation leaving him to his fate. If the respondents had granted him the relief, so much the better for the petitioner. But, if he has been denied relief it shall not furnish him a legal cause of action to maintain a proceeding in a Court of law where none was found to exist earlier. Any such fresh order by the authorities cannot condone the delay of 8 years noticed by the Court on the previous occasion when it declined relief on grounds of delay. The pitfalls of a pious observation by the Courts of the present nature has been cautioned by the Supreme Court in (2008) 10 SCC 115 ( C. JACOB V. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING) that the Courts should be vary of giving such directions, arousing false hopes, generating litigation by its own orders. The impugned order rightly considers the 5 issue of a compassionate appointment as a matter of fact after 17 years as belated in nature. The Courts find no infirmity in the same. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)