IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.359 of 2008 ***** 1. BINOD KUMAR S/O LATE INDRADEO PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- SAHU ROAD, MAHAPATRA LANE, MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.- SADAR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (RURAL DEPARTMENT) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ADDL. SECRETARY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (RURAL DEVELOPMENT) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARPUR. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kamla Kant Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, G.P.14 ------------ 5. 21.4.2010. We have heard Mr. Kamla Kant Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the State. In this intra-Court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12286 of 2001. The factual matrix, which is essential to be stated is that the appellant, Binod Kumar, was - 2 - given an appointment as a Compositor on contract basis in the year 1972. His father, who was working as a Compositor died on 9.11.1975. After the death of his father he worked for some time when he raised his claim for compassionate appointment and a letter was issued to him on 18.11.1977 appointing him on temporary and ad hoc basis. The said appointment continued for some time and eventually his services were terminated on 2.2.1980. Thereafter series of litigations were filed. In the order impugned the learned Single Judge has held as follows: - “It is evident on a brief narration of facts that the petitioner seems to raise a stale claim. He was born in the year 1954, and is fast approaching his age of superannuation. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed on 19.3.1997, and the present writ petition was lodged in this Court on 18.9.2001. The same suffers from unexplained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence.” In our considered, opinion when the appellant is out of service since 1980, he has no right to hold the post and it would be travesty of justice to direct to appoint him on compassionate ground or he should be engaged as a daily - 3 - wager. In our considered opinion there is no substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, if the appellant submits a representation for being engaged as a daily wager, the competent authority may consider his case regard being had to his suitability, ability and physical capacity. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)