IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11771 of 2007 1. Shanti Devi, wife of late Dr. Akhileshwawr Sinha @ Akhleshwar Prasad. 2. Ram Krishna Sinha, son of late Dr. Akhileshwar Sinha @ Akhleshwar Prasad. Both residing in village Jagatpur Betauli, P.S. Ghoshi (Hulashganj), P.O. Murgaon, District Jehanabad. ---------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna. 3. Dy. Director (Headquarter), Deptt. of Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna. 4. Dy. Secretary, Section of Mukhya Mantri Sachivalaya, Bihar, Patna. 5. Addl. Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Zila Padadhikari, Nalanda. 7. Zila Pashupalan Padadhikari, Nalanda. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 8.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application is for issuing direction to the respondents to consider their case for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the reason given by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for rejecting the application filed by petitioners by holding it to be time barred is wholly unsustainable both on fact and in law. He has in this regard explained that the 2 petitioner no.2 had filed the application on 10.3.1987 whereas his father had died on 9.2.1987 and for supporting himself in law, he would rely on a Division Bench Judgment in the case of Kamlanand Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2007(1)PLJR 672. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the submissions are to be only noted for its being rejected. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner no.2 is 7.7.1975 and, therefore, he could not have filed the application for his compassionate appointment before attaining the majority i.e. on or before 6.7.1992. The story of the petitioner no.2 of filing the application on 10.3.1987, therefore, has to be noted for its being rejected because that was not an application in the eye of law as the petitioner no.2 was definitely a minor even in the year 1987 being less than twelve years of age. As a matter of fact, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee has noted that the application after the petitioner no.2 became major was received through the 3 controlling authority and that was in the date of 17.8.1997. The Compassionate Appointment Committee, taking into account that the death of the deceased employee had taken place way back in the month of February 1987, had found such application to be time barred. Let it be noted that prior to 1989, the limitation for filing of an application was only two years, which got extended only in the year 1989 to five years. The petitioner no.2, therefore, even if given benefit of extended period of five years, did not become major within five years of the death of his father, inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner no.2 had died on 9.2.1987 and the petitioner no.2 became major only on 7.7.1993, whereas, the last date of application could be either 9.2.1989 by taking two years into account or 9.2.1992 if the limitation is to be taken five years. In either case, the petitioner no.2 was a minor within the period of limitation. It is this aspect of the matter which has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & 4 Ors. and other analogous cases reported in 1993(1)PLJR 414, wherein, it has been held that if the dependant will not become major even till the last date of limitation of filing of the application on compassionate ground, he would not be entitled for such appointment on compassionate ground. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the case on Kamlanand Jha (supra) is also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, it would appear that the father of Kamlanand Jha had died in harness on 24.8.1993 and the application for compassionate appointment was filed on 27.5.1998 at a point of time when he was seventeen years and eight months of age. It was in that context that the Division Bench having found on 24.8.1998 i.e. within five years, Kamlanand Jha could have become major, had gone to hold that the application should not have been rejected on account of his being minor. Once this aspect becomes clear, rest of the submissions based on the aforementioned judgment has to be rejected. The case of Kamlanand Jha is clearly 5 distinguishable on fact. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)