IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9478 of 2006 Brameshwar Singh, son of Raj Kishore Singh, resident of village- Kochadhi, Post- Sarenja, P.S. Rajpur, District-Buxar …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar 4. The Block Development Officer, Rajpur, District-Buxar 5. The District Education Officer, Buxar 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar…… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner:- M/S Sanjay Kumar and Surendra Kr. Choubey For the State: Mr. Ravi Kumar, A/C to SC 21. ----------- 2. 27.03.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground on a suitable post. The case of the petitioner is that his mother was an assistant teacher in primary school under the Government of Bihar and she died on 14.10.1984. Thereafter he claims to have filed an application for compassionate appointment in the year 1988 itself. It is submitted that the petitioner kept on waiting but no response was received from the respondent-authorities and then he filed an application on 22.10.1991 before the Block Development Officer who made an endorsement to the effect that he had filed application on 26.6.1988. The petitioner also urges that the letter dated 14.8.1992 (Annexure-2) was sent by the Block Development Officer, Rajpur to the District Superintendent of Education to take necessary action enclosing the application of the petitioner. He submits that even after so many years his case has not been considered although he wrote to various authorities in this regard. - 2 - In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State- respondents the stand taken is that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Compassionate Committee, Buxar in its meeting dated 19.5.1992 and it was found that while his mother died on 14.10.1984 he had applied on 23.3.1992 and thus his application was beyond the five years period prescribed for filing such application and on the said ground the application was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was never communicated to the petitioner and thus he was not aware of the same until the filing of the counter affidavit. He also relies upon the so-called endorsement made on his application regarding his having filed the application on 26.6.1988. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the so-called endorsement does not show as to who had made the same nor does it bear the seal of the official concerned and nothing can be made out from the said endorsement as to who has signed the same. It is submitted that the document has been created subsequently after the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the District Compassionate Committee. It is contended that from Annexure-2 it is clear that the application of the petitioner forwarded by the Block Development Officer on 14.8.1992 is subsequent to the rejection of his application dated 23.3.1992 by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 19.5.1992. It is further urged by learned counsel that the proceedings of the District Compassionate Committee are communicated to the concerned - 3 - Government officials and there is no reason that the petitioner was not aware of the rejection of his application; despite the same the petitioner has not approached this Court for a long period of time and thus any claim for appointment on compassionate ground apart from other reasons would be barred by the fact that the petitioner has survived for 25 years after the death of his mother and thus he is not entitled to any compassionate appointment. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is stale and belated since under the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and ors. : (1994) 4 SCC 138 the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of a substantial period of time. The claim for the same cannot survive after nearly 25 years of the death of the deceased government employee. If the petitioner has survived the financial vicissitudes for more than two decades then the said fact disentitles him to any appointment on compassionate ground, apart from the fact that from the materials on record it appears that the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the District Compassionate Committee way back in the year 1992 and if the petitioner was really serious about getting his appointment he must have tried to obtain information regarding his pending application and would have known that the same has been rejected. The various pleas taken by the petitioner appear to be merely an attempt to somehow get the appointment although he has slept over the matter for such a long period of time. - 4 - There being no merit in the writ application, it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)