IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.866 of 2010 1. GOVIND RAUT, S/O LATE DUKHI RAUT, R/O VILLAGE BILASPUR, P.S.- RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN ….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BETTIA, WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN …… RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner:- Mr. M. Nasrul Hoda Khan & Mr. Suman Kumar, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Amarendra Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-XI ----------- 03 17.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner’s father was deceased in harness on 16.10.1997. He was admittedly a minor aged about 13 years two months on that date. His mother applied for compassionate appointment which was rejected on 9.5.2003. It remained unquestioned and attained finality. The time limit under Rules was 5 years to make an application for compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner attained majority after the period of 5 years and then applied for compassionate appointment, rejected on 19.7.2008. The judgment impugned holds that the 2 rejection of the mother application having attained finality, the petitioner having applied after 5 years from death, after attaining majority, there was no justification to consider a claim for compassionate appointment nearly 12 years later. We find no infirmity in the order under challenge. Compassionate appointment has been held to be an exception to Article 14 countenanced by the Courts, subject to strict adherence of the Rules regulating such appointment. The right to be considered for compassionate appointment is not an inheritable right available by the descent. The Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1997 SC 3887 (HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER VERSUS HAKIM SINGH) considering a similar claim for compassionate appointment by the minor attaining majority years later setting aside the judgment of the High Court held at paragraph-12 as follows:- “12. We are of the view that the High Court has erred in over stretching the scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears that High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of 3 succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.” The appeal is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)