IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7743 of 2007 MOTI RAM,S/O LATE SUMER RAM, R/O VILLAGE KOHARI, POST DARAULI, P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE BARKI KARPURWA POLICE STATION DARIGAON, DISTRICT-ROHTAS AT SASARAM. ………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3.SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4.DIRECTOR PERSONNEL, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5.GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, MAGADH ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, GAYA. 6.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL, ROHTAS ELECTRIC CIRCLE, SASARAM. 7.ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, DEHRI-ON-SONE. 8.ASSISTANT ENGINEEER, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. ……………………RESPONDENTS 1ST SET. 9.LALMUNI DEVI @ TAPESHARI, W/O LATE LAKSHMAN RAM (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS WIFE OF LATE SUMER RAM), R/O VILLAGE-KOHARI, P.S.BHABHUA, DISTRICT.KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE-BARKI KARPURWA, POLICE STATION-DARIGAON, DISTRICT-ROHTAS AT SASARAM. …………………RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- 02/ 04.04.2011 Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Saha, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raghunandan Prasad Singh counsel for the State. Admittedly the father of the petitioner died on 29.03.1981, at the point of time when the petitioner was aged about 5 2 to 6 years. The petitioner however, has filed this writ application on 05.07.2007, claiming that he should be appointed on compassionate ground by terminating the services of respondent no. 9, who according to the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Counsel for the petitioner however would frankly concede that such appointment of respondent no. 9, was made in the year 1987 and challenge to her appointment, is belated by 20 years. Counsel for the petitioner would however submit that respondent no. 9, had played a fraud while obtaining certain money from Life Insurance Corporation as also other death cum retirement benefits of the deceased employee including her appointment on compassionate ground by omitting to declare the legitimate claim of the petitioner who was the only son and successor of the deceased employee. He would accordingly submit that such fraudulent actions on the part of Respondent no. 9 can not be allowed to perpetuated and this Court should accordingly interfere in the appointment of respondent no. 9, by issuing 3 a direction both for termination of her service as also for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion of this court no one stop the petitioner for his aspiring and asking for the moon but then the reality surfacing from facts discussed above would go to show that the petitioner’s grievance either for his own appointment on compassionate ground or a challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 9 is wholly belated. There is no explanation in the writ petition whatsoever, for such an inordinate delay of more than twenty years in moving this Court. Thus if the petitioner feels that respondent no. 9 had withdrawn certain amount by making a misrepresentation or playing fraud, the legal course for him was/is always for recovery of such amount before appropriate forum. That however, will not give him a cause of action to agitate for his own compassionate appointment especially when it would be found that he was ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground within the prescribed period of limitation, which was only two 4 years as in the year 1981. As a matter of fact the petitioner, was not a major either on the date of death of his father or even in the prescribed period of limitation from the date of death of his father and thus was ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground. The authorities therefore cannot be said to have made any error in rejecting such frivolous claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. The aspect as to whether the appointment of respondent no. 9, suffers from any infirmity can also not now be gone into by this Court, inasmuch as, she has been continuing in service for a period of more than 20 years, on the basis of being the widow of the deceased employee. If the petitioner was so sanguine about his own case, that the respondent no. 9 was an imposter and not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee he had to get it declared by a competent Civil Court where both the petitioner and Respondent no. 9 could have proven their case with the help of evidence. This Court however cannot make such declaration, inasmuch as, evidence for 5 resolving this purely disputed question of fact cannot be adduced before this Court in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus for reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)