IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2180 of 2008 OM PRAKASH PANDEY, S/O LATE RAMSWARATH PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. JHAUMAR DIHERA, P.S. BARARON, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. ...........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA-1. 2.THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4.THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD, BIHAR. 5.THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT COLLECTRIAT OFFICE, AURANGABAD. 6.THE DISTRICT COMPASSIONATE COMMITTEE, AURANGABAD. 7.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, AURANGABAD. 8.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BARUN, AURANGABAD, DISTRICT-BIHAR. 9.OM PRAKASH GUPTA, S/O LATE MUNSI SHAW, NAGAR HIGH SCHOOL, BARUN AURANGABAD. ............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 19.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 18.12.2006, whereby and whereunder the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on the ground that the application was filed after 29 years of the death of the 2 deceased employee, has submitted that there seems to be apparent error on record in coming to such conclusion, inasmuch as, the petitioner had throughout been filing repeated representations for his appointment on compassionate ground. In this context, counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the case of respondent no. 9, whose claim for appointment on compassionate ground was earlier rejected but later on he was appointed in the year 1996. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand with the help of the counter affidavit would submit that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was filed in the year 1988, which was rejected in the meeting of District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 22.01.1990 and 25.07.1991, on the ground that the same was filed after a period of five years from the date of death of his father, being 15.11.1977. He has further explained that it was another application filed on 15.09.2006, seeking review of the earlier decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, which 3 was considered by the committee in the meeting held on 05.12.2006 and the same was rejected on the ground of its being time barred. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the petitioner himself admits that he was aged about 10 years at the time of death of his father as is clearly stated by him in Annexure-2 dated 23.06.1989, that would mean that the petitioner remained minor either on the date of death of his father i.e. 15.11.1977 or within next two years as per the policy of the Circular of the State Government dated 12.07.1977, such application can be filed for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus the moment this Court would come to clear that the petitioner was ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground either on the date of death of his father in 1997 or within the period of limitation of two years for seeking compassionate appointment, there would be also no escape from the inevitable conclusion that the petitioner was wholly ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground on account of his being minor. This 4 aspect of the matter has been settled long back by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & ors, reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the case of the petitioner has to be considered, inasmuch as, the petitioner on his own showing became major in the year 1985 and therefore, the claim of the respondents that the petitioner’s first application was filed in the year 1988, which was considered and rejected on two occasions by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in the year 1990 and 1991 would go to show that the petitioner had received due consideration of his case and even at that point of time his application was rejected on account of its being time barred. The whole context of the impugned order recording delay of 29 years has to be also understood only in this background that, when the petitioner had filed a fresh application seeking review of earlier decision that such application was held to 5 be belated by 29 years. The undisputed fact would however still remain that the first application of the petitioner was filed in 1988 after eleven years of death of his father and the same it could not have been allowed, inasmuch as, the petitioner was a minor throughout the year when the period of limitation of two years as per 1977 circular had expired. In that view of the matter, this Court would find no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)