IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7433 of 2006 Maruti Nandan Mishra, adopted son of Late Bishwanath Pandey, resident of village-Sansar Dihri, P.O.- Kurur, P.S. Karakat, District-Rohtas …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Chairman of District Compassionate Committee, Rohtas at Sasaram 3. The District Education Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Rohtas at Sasaram…. Respondens. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Naresh Kumar Malhotra and Binod Kumar Sinha-2, Advocates. For the State: Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, A.C. to GP 19. ----------- 3. 24.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of memo no. 31 dated 12.12.2005 containing the decision of the District Compassionate Committee dated 6.12.2005 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Rohtas by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of being adopted son of the deceased employee has been rejected. From the impugned order dated 12.12.2005 it is evident that the Compassionate Committee while rejecting the case of the petitioner at its meeting dated 6.12.2005 has stated that earlier also the application of the petitioner had been rejected by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 25.9.2002 and 25.9.1996 on the ground that it is not in accordance with law. In the earlier meeting of the District Compassionate Committee held on 25.9.1996 the application of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the proof regarding the petitioner being an adopted son 2 is not sufficient and in addition his application was not filed within the period prescribed by the Government for filing an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a letter dated 9.7.1996 of the Establishment Deputy Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram in which he has communicated the fact that since the Compassionate Committee has found that his father had died on 14.7.1986 whereas the documents regarding adoption is dated 29.8.1991, therefore, the claim does not appear to be probable and further the application is also not within the time prescribed for filing the same; it is further stated therein that if he produces clear evidence regarding his being an adopted son then it will be possible to consider his application. Relying upon the same learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now come forward with a deed of adoption dated 8.10.1980 (Annexure-1) which is during the life time of his father and accordingly his case may be considered. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the case of the petitioner having been rejected twice earlier has rightly been rejected again by the District Compassionate Committee in its decision dated 6.12.2005 which has been impugned in the present writ application. It is further submitted that so called new document appears to have been signed only by the adoptive mother and father, the deceased employee and has not been signed by the natural parents of the petitioner stating that they have given 3 their natural son, the petitioner, in adoption to Bishwanath Pandey and Smt. Rajmuni Devi. It is thus, submitted that the said document does have not any worth in the eye of law. Learned counsel also refers to averments made in the adoption deed dated 29.8.1991 signed by the widow of the deceased employee in which she has clearly stated that the deed of adoption could not be executed during the life time of her husband and accordingly she has written the present deed of adoption. It is thus, submitted that on the basis of the statements made in the deed of adoption dated 29.8.1991 produced by the petitioner himself before the authorities earlier, it is evident that the first deed of adoption is a sham document created for the purpose of getting benefit of compassionate appointment. It is also pointed out that even in the second deed of adoption there is no signature of the natural parents of the petitioner and neither of the adoption deeds had been registered. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The so called adoptive father of the petitioner died on 14.7.1986 and thereafter the petitioner claims to have filed his application in the year 1991. After lapse of 22 years from the death of deceased employee there can be no justification for considering any case for appointment on compassionate ground. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and ors. : (1994) 4 SCC 138, the appointment 4 on compassionate ground cannot be claimed at any or every time irrespective of the period that has elapsed since the death of the deceased employee since the same is meant to take care of the immediate financial hardship that befalls the family of the deceased employee upon his death. This Court also finds that the petitioner had at no stage challenged the earlier orders of rejection of his application for compassionate appointment on the grounds of insufficient evidence regarding adoption as also the application being filed beyond the prescribed period for filing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the said ground of delay in filing application is not correct. Since he has not challenged the earlier order rejecting his claim on the said ground in the year 1996 he cannot be permitted to raise the said plea at this belated stage by approaching this Court for the first time against the subsequent order of rejection in 2006 on the ground that the last rejection is in the year 2006. Thus, there is no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)