IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8565 of 2010 Chandan Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Lagan Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Ganesh Asthan, P.O. Sahugarh, P.S.- Madhepura, Dist.- Madhepura --- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 2. The Superintendent of Post Office, Saharsa. 3. The Post Master, Head Branch Post Office, Madhepura. 4. The Secretary Post Office, Department, New Delhi. ---- Respondents. ----------- 02 18.05.2010 Heard Mr. Hemendra Pratap Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.08.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 403 of 2003 (Chandan Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the present writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, and the order of the authorities declining the same has been upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that Ram Lagan Prasad Singh, the petitioner’s late father, was an employee in the Postal Department of the Government of India. He died on 25-05-1999, while still in harness, leaving behind his widow, two married daughters, and one son, who is the present petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application for his appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected by order dated 06.11.2000 (Annexure-2), passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner preferred aforesaid O.A.No. 403 of 2003, after lapse of 2 three years which has been rejected by the Tribunal by its order in question. 3. It appears to us that the employee’s widow received a sum of Rs. 54,440/- towards DCRG, a sum of Rs. 32,802/- as leave encashment, and Family Pension of Rs. 2498/- . The family possesses 1.32 acres of landed property, and owns a house. The annual income from agriculture has been assessed by the learned Tribunal at about Rs. 30,000/- per year. Both the daughters were already married before the employee died. There is also a limitation of vacancies to the extent of 5% for appointment on compassionate ground. We, therefore, entirely agree with the conclusion of the authorities, and rightly upheld by the learned Tribunal, that the employee did not leave the family in impecunious circumstances, coupled with the limitation of vacancies. The petitioner is also faced with the question of delay. He preferred the original application nearly three years after his application was rejected by the authorities. The present writ petition was lodged in this Court on 13.05.2010, that is after lapse of nearly five years from the date of the order of the learned Tribunal. 4. In the result, we do not find merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Sym (S.K.Katriar,J) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)