WP(C) 7688/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B.LOKUR The petitioner’s father expired on 25.10.2000 and the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground only on 10.9.2002, that is, after a lap se of one year 10 months. On this basis, the application of the petitioner was rejected by an ord er dated 4th August, 2003. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that a document dated 12th Febru ary, 2001 is applicable to the facts of the case and the same has been misinterp reted. In terms of this document, an application for appointment on compassiona te ground should be considered and disposed of within a period of one year. Acco rding to learned counsel, the respondents misconstrued the document to mean that if the application is filed after one year, it cannot be considered. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition in which they have referred to a Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Office Memorandum dated 9th October, 1998 read with a clarificatory le tter dated 8th July, 2002 in which it is stated that all compassionate appointme nt cases are to be considered within one year from the death/medically boarding out of a Government servant. In this case, since the application was filed after a lapse of one year, the same cannot be considered in view of the above Office Memorandum read with the clarification. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to this affidavit. It is also stated that an intimation in this regard was given to the petitioner by letter dated 5th April, 2003. It appears clearly from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents t hat the case of the petitioner could not be considered since the application was filed by him after a lapse of more than one year and in view of the office memo randum dated 9th October, 1998 read with the clarification dated 8th July, 2002, the application could not be considered. There is no challenge to the office memorandum or to the clarification. In fact, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents did not e rr in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner since it was beyond the time prescribed. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.