IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6285 of 2008 RAM KISHORE VERMA, S/O LATE RAM PRAVESH VERMA, R/O VILLAGE MORIAWAN, P.S. BIKRAM, DISTRICT PATNA. ............ Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS, AT SASARAM. 4.THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 5.THE INCHARAGE, MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE DEHRI, DISTRICT-ROHTAS AT SASARAM. ...........RESPONDENTS. --------- 02/ 22.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Complaining inaction on the part of the respondents in considering case for appointment of the petitioiner on compassionate ground learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of date of death of father of the petitioner i.e 28.03.1982, the petitioner was aged about four years (his date of birth being 01.02.1978) and therefore, after the death of his father and as such when he became major only in the year 1996, he had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground but the same has still not been 2 finally disposed of. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would also explain that the petitioner’s application after becoming major may have been filed in the year 1996 but his mother’s application for her own appointment on compassionate ground was filed well within the period of two years as prescribed in the circular dated 12.7.1977 and therefore, the case of the petitioner can also not be rejected on the ground of its being barred by limitation prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground. In this context, he would place his reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Brajendra Prasad Poddar vs The State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1990 BBCJ 350 In this case a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Compassionate Appointment Committee in the meeting held on 25.08.1990, and the committee was of the view that the application of the petitioner was received after six years of the date of death of his father and therefore, in view of the revised period of limitation of five years prescribed 3 in 1989 circular appropriate guideline had been sought from the State Government. In the opinion of this Court, there should have been no difficulty in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as, the petitioner was admittedly a minor at the time of date of death of his father and remained so, within the period of limitation prescribed in the policy that was in vogue as contained in the Government circular dated 12.07.1977, prescribing the period of limitation of only two years for filing of an application from the date of death of the employee. Thus when the petitioner did not became major within a period of two years even after the date of death of his father, his claim for appointment on compassionate ground for once and all had automatically come to an end. Law in this respect has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & ors, reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414, wherein the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Brajendra Prasad Poddar(supra) has also 4 considered and distinguished on facts. From reading of the facts of the case of Brajendra Kumar Singh (supra), it is apparent that the petitioner Mr. Singh had become major in the period of limitation itself and therefore, the Division Bench had directed to consider his case by taking the help of subsequent Government decision of 1989 wherein the period of limitation had been extended from two years to five years. Such is not the facts of the case of the petitioner of this case because even though he has been given the same benefit of extended period of limitation of five years as was given in the earlier Division Bench judgment of Brajendra Kumar Singh (supra) even then by he could not become major, inasmuch as, he was still less than 10 years on the date of completion of period of five years from the date of death of his father. In that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner would be squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Anil Kumar Singh (supra). At this stage counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case of the 5 petitioner is still pending before the authority and therefore liberty should be given to the petitioner to approach the authority for expediting an early final decision in his case. In the considered opinion of this court, when the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and in fact has approached this Court after 26 years of the cause of action, he cannot be allowed to unecessarily to whip a dead hourse by remaining under a false impression that he would ever get appointment on compassionate ground. The moment he had become disentitled for appointment in view of law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Singh (supra) he could have been well advised to close his case for appointment on compassionate ground. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)