IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1231 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8558 of 2007 ====================================================== 1. Abhijit Kumar Thakur S/O Late Uma Shankar Thakur, R/O Vill.- Amaitha Panapur, Police Station- Karja, Distt.- Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Home Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director General of Police, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Darbhanga 5. The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga 7. The District Magistrate, Samastipur 8. The Superintendent of Police, Samatipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Rajpati, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, A. C. to G. P. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 15-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1st July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 8558 of 2007 the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Patna High Court LPA No.1231 of 2011 (2) dt.15-09-2011 2 The appellant, son of one Uma Shankar Thakur, a police constable in the service of the State Government, seeks compassionate employment on the ground that the said Uma Shankar Thakur has disappeared since 17th June 1995 and has not been heard of since then. The learned single Judge has recorded three reasons for holding the appellant ineligible for compassionate employment and has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. We do agree with the learned single Judge. Learned advocate Mr. Pramod Rajpati has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the Government Circular dated 31st October 2008 and also upon Section 108 of the Evidence Act. The aforesaid Circular stipulates that in case of disappearance of the Government servant one need not wait for seven years, i.e. the statutory period of seven years to presume a missing person to be dead, to apply for compassionate employment. It further says that in case of disappearance of a Government servant an application for compassionate employment can be made two years after the date of disappearance provided an F.I.R. for missing person has been lodged and the person is not heard of. It is specifically mentioned that in case of compassionate employment statutory presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act will not apply. Patna High Court LPA No.1231 of 2011 (2) dt.15-09-2011 3 In other words, the ward or the dependent of such missing person can apply for compassionate employment after two years from the date of disappearance. Necessarily such application has to be made within the time specified under the relevant scheme. In the present case on the date of disappearance of the Government servant the appellant was a minor. By the time he attained majority and he made the application, specified period of five years was over. The appellant could not have been offered compassionate employment. In any view of the matter, the question of compassionate employment now, after more than 16 years from the date of the disappearance of the Government servant, will not arise. Appeal is dismissed in limine. BTiwary/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)