IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20426 of 2011 1. Rajeev Kumar son of Late Jai Karan Prasad, resident of village Dewaria Kothi, P.S. Muzaffarpur, Dist. Muzaffarpur. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai. 2. The General Manager, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai. 3. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 4. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Office, Vaishali, Bihar. ------ Respondents. 02 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Central Bank of India (for short ‘Bank’). Father of writ petitioner was serving the Bank. He died in harness sometimes in the year 2000. Petitioner laid a claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The said matter was considered and refused which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.06.2001 (Annexure-3). It is the case of the petitioner that he again made a representation before the higher authorities of the Bank whereafter communication dated 23.10.2002 (Annexure-6) was issued by the Chief Manager (PRS), Zonal office of the Bank. Learned counsel contends that in the light of the aforesaid communication his case is required to be considered. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, contends that the matter was considered at the appropriate level of the Bank and considering the reason assigned in communication dated 16.06.2001 (Annexure-3) his prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. 2 Learned counsel highlighted the facts set out in Annexure-3. It is also contended that the policy of granting appointment on compassionate ground have now undergone change. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Appointment on compassionate ground has been held to be an appointment inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, the Apex Court has approved such appointment considering the extreme circumstances faced by the family on the death of the bread-earner. From the reasons assigned in Annexure-3, it appears that the family is economically secured. Petitioner is able to survive for all these years. The crisis seems to be over now which is a relevant consideration in granting appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner is raising a grievance with respect to an order/decision taken way back in 2001. There is, thus, inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court in raising a grievance with respect to decision/order taken/made in 2001. From the materials on record and after hearing the parties, this Court is not satisfied that a case for invocation of extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction is made out. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)