IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8385 of 2011 BASUDEO URAON @ BASU URAON SON OF LATE MUNI LAL URAON, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAUTARA, POLICE STATION RAUTARA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. ......PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE, KATIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT BOARD, KATIHAR. 6. THE ESTABLISHMENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. ....... RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Suryakant Kumar (AC to SC-19) 2 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner seeks quashing of the Memo No. 730 dated 17.08.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Katihar communicating the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Katihar held on 10.08.2002, by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. It appears that the petitioner on the death of his father on 16.06.1997 while in the service of the District Board, Katihar had applied for compassionate appointment within the required time. The application 2 for compassionate appointment was rejected by the aforesaid memo dated 17.08.2002 by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Katihar at its meeting held on 10.08.2002 communicated vide the impugned memo dated 17.08.2002 on the ground that the petitioner's educational qualification is Class-V, whereas, the minimum educational qualification required for appointment on Class IV post is Class VIII. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never communicated the said order but no such averment has been made in the petition, although one of the issues raised is that the Compassionate Appointment Committee decision was not communicated to the petitioner. From the averments made by the petitioner, it appears that after the petitioner filed the application for compassionate appointment, he was appointed as daily wager field employee but suddenly in the month of October 2010 he was disengaged and thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court. This Court is of the view that an 3 application for compassionate appointment must be pursued diligently by the dependents of the deceased employee as the whole purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee. It is difficult to accept that the application having been rejected in the year 2002 the petitioner was not aware of the same, specially when he was working as a daily wager at the same place. The petitioner was expected to keep back of his application which if his assertion is accepted he did not bother about. The petitioner is guilty of laches in the matter in approaching this Court after such a long time, and if he has been able to sustain himself for a long period of 14 years since the death of his father then the said fact is sufficient to disentitle him for the grant of compassionate appointment. On this ground alone his application under Article 226 of the Constitution is fit to be rejected. In any view of the matter, since the petitioner does not qualify for Class IV post, being only Class V pass instead of Class VIII as required by 4 the qualification prescribed by the State Government, there can be no question of his being appointed on compassionate ground on class IV post. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is also not inclined to consider such an old and stale claim. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Bhardwaj ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )