IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14184 of 2010 MANOJ KUMAR SON OF LATE K.D. JHA, R/O VILLAGE-RAIPURA, P.O. AND P.S. FATWAH, DISTRICT-PATNA………………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THRU THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME MINISTRY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BLOCK NO.3, 4TH FLOOR, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE COMMITTEE OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT AND ITS MEMBERS AND OFFICE BEARERS AT CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BLOCK NO.3, 4TH FLOOR C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BLOCK NO.3, 4TH FLOOR C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 5. THE SUPEINTENDENT OF POLICE (H.Q), CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BLOCK NO.3, 4TH FLOOR C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. …………………………….RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the CBI:- Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Union of India:- Mr.Md.Abu Haider, CGC ---------- 04/ 29-Sep-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for CBI and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner’s father was a Private Secretary in Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for brevity), Head Office, New Delhi. He applied for retirement on medical ground on 12.02.2002 and was allowed to retire on the recommendation of the Medical Board on 31.7.2002. Immediately thereafter, an application was 2 filed for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Although, the Rule did not permit consideration for compassionate appointment where a Government servant was retired after attaining the age of 55 years, the fact that petitioner’s father was retired at the age of 56 years and 25 days on medical ground was ignored and the authorities considered the case of the petitioner in the meeting held on 27.02.2004. The Selection Committee did not select the petitioner as it found the cases of six other candidates to be more deserving for compassionate appointment. 3. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 29.08.2006 dismissed O.A. No.678/2005 preferred by the petitioner after calling for and perusing the comparative chart containing details of the petitioner’s case and that of other candidates. 4. After perusal of the said chart the Tribunal has recorded that it found no ground to interfere. 5. Before us also issue of fact was raised that on facts petitioner’s case should have been held to be more deserving. We are not persuaded to go into 3 determination of issues of fact after the Tribunal has recorded its satisfaction with the decision of the authorities. 6. It may incidentally be mentioned that the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner in August 2006 whereas this writ petition has been filed in August 2010. The stamp reporting in this writ petition indicates that it was initially presented in January 2010 but was kept defective and was resubmitted after a long delay of more than six months. There is also an explanation in the writ petition that earlier a writ petition was filed bearing CWJC No. 1028 of 2006 but the same was not pursued and ultimately after about three years, on enquiry that was found to be writ petition preferred by another person and was disposed of on 17.01.2007. A plea was taken that the earlier writ petition might have been numbered differently and it was claimed that Token No. 17163 of 2006 was issued on account of filing of the earlier writ petition on 18.12.2006. This fact could not be verified in spite of best efforts made by the office. 7. We would not like to dwell upon this 4 matter any further because on merits, we do not find it an appropriate case to be interfered with. The same is dismissed accordingly. perwez ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)