IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1180 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 7071 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 6640 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1180 of 2010 ==================================================== 1. Smt.Shiromani Devi Widow of Late Sachida Nand Sharma R/O Vill Pipra, P.S.Begusarai, Distt-Begusarai. …. …. Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India Through The Secretary, Railway Rail Bhawan New Delhi 2. The Director General of Police , Railway Protection Force New Delhi 3. The General Manager, Eastern Railway Kolkatta 4. The Senior Divisional Manager, Eastern Railway Howrah, Kolkatta. …. …. Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 12.8.2010. Re. Interlocutory Application No. 6640 of 2010:- This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 25 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Anil Singh appears for the Union of India. He has no objection if the delay is - 2 - condoned. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1180 of 2010: - The Appellant, mother of a Government employee, has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 23rd April 2010 made by the learned single Judge in the above C.W.J.C. No. 7071 of 2010. Since the husband of the appellant died on 6th April 1991 their son was offered compassionate appointment in the year 1999. The appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the year 2010 to claim that her son should be deemed to have been appointed from the date of the death of her husband. The learned single Judge has dismissed the petition as in the opinion of the learned single Judge the date of appointment cannot be shifted back on the ground of delay in appointment. We do agree with the opinion of the learned single Judge. Besides, we are of the opinion that the appellant has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition for the benefit of her son. He is not aggrieved by his appointment in the year 1999 nor has he claimed deemed appointment from the year 1991. - 3 - The appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)