IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14542 of 2007 MAHENDRA MISTRI, S/O LATE BHOLA MISTRI, R/O VILLAGE BHAKHARI, P.O. BHAKHARI, P.S. DHAUARA, DISTRICT PATNA. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT GANGA GHAT, CHAITAIN MANDIR, P.S.ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA. ……………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, SECRETARIATE PRINTING PRESS GULZARBAGH, PATNA-7. 4.THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT, SECRETARIATE PRINTING PRESS GULZARBAGH, PATNA-7. ……………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 11.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for issuance of a direction to the authorities including the respondents for considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner claims that his father being a Carpenter in Government Press, Gulzarbagh died in harness on 29.08.2007, and though the petitioner was nominated by his father to receive all retirement benefits including family pension, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has not been considered. In this context, learned counsel 2 has also pointed out that there has been a consensus amongst all the four sons of the deceased employee including the petitioner, that he alone should be appointed on compassionate ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities have however not accepted the application filed by the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. Normally these questions could have been easily answered by the respondents but then they do not have the habit of filing counter affidavit. The writ application was filed in the year 14.11.2007 i.e. three months after the death of the deceased employee, but in a period of almost four years the Official respondents have not even woken up from their deep slumber for even answering the averments made in this writ application. It is equally true that these averments will have no meaning, inasmuch as, the petitioner himself has made a confusing statement in paragraph no. 5 of the writ application, which is being quoted hereinbelow:- “That after death of 3 his father petitioner meet before the authority and submitting claims but authorities and their officials not receiving the same.” At least from reading of the aforementioned statement, it would be difficult for this Court to understand that as to whether the receipt of the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was refused. Nonetheless as the petitioner definitely has made out a case for his consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, this Court would give an opportunity to the petitioner to even now file an application in the prescribed proforma, as the period of limitation of five years has still not come to an end. In the event, such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be accepted by the controlling authority of the father of the petitioner namely Government Press, Gulzarbagh, who would thereafter would be under an obligation to transmit it to the competent authority for taking a final 4 decision. The decision taken by the competent authority/controlling authority must be communicated to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner but has merely directed the authorities to do the needful as is envisaged in the Government policy laying down the norms for appointment on compassionate ground. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)