IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6599 of 2007 LALAN KUMAR son of late Ramji Bhagat resident of village Basauli, Police Station Kudhani, District Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director of Education, Bihar Patna. 3. The Collector, Hajipur (Vaishali) 4. Deputy Inspector of School, Hajipur (Vaishali) …. Respondents. ----------- 2. 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. As with regard to solitary relief of a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground this Court would find that the death of the father of the petitioner had taken place on 8.3.1989 while the petitioner was a minor at that point of time and in fact he continued to remain minor even in the next five years, the period of limitation in which an application could be filed for appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the petitioner would, however, explain that since the petitioner was minor and was pursuing his study with the help of the family pension being paid to him, he after becoming major and passing matriculation examination in 2005 had filed the 2 application which ought not to have been rejected on the ground of limitation. Counsel for the State would point out that the policy does not lay down any exception so far the limitation is concerned. He would also submit that if the petitioner could survive for a period of 22 years, there would be as of now no need for his appointment on compassionate ground. In this context, he would also refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases reported in 1993(1)PLJR 414 wherein it has been held that an application by a minor for appointment on compassionate ground could be entertained only if he becomes major within the period of limitation. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground is not permissible under the government policy. The eligibility condition also prescribes age limit and the petitioner was definitely minor either on the date of death of his father or even in the period of five years and therefore the 3 appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was not permissible under the Government policy. It is this aspect of the matter which has been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Singh (supra) while laying down law of a minor being ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Additionally, this Court would find that after a period of 22 years when no other dependent of the family is around and the petitioner has received not only the family pension but also the retirement benefit of his father, his condition cannot be said to be in penury. True it is, the petitioner may find now difficulty to sustain himself but the scheme of compassionate appointment only envisages immediate redressal of the crisis caused on account of death of the earning employee. Here the petitioner has survived for 22 years and therefore this Court would not exercise its discretion by directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. In taking such view this Court is also bound by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1994(4)SCC 138. 4 Thus for the reasons mentioned above, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)