IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1711 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO17836 of 2009 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.9324 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1711 of 2010 ========================================= Pradip Kumar Hembram s/o late Motilal Hembram, r/o village – Badi Madhuban, P.O. – Prasanda, P.S. – Haweli Kharagpur, District – Munger ………….. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Home, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director General of Police, Police Department, Patna 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 4. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Level Compassionate Committee, Patna ……… Respondents ============================================ APPEARANCE For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kashyap, AC to AAG IV =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 16/11/2010 I.A. No.9324 of 2010 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 6 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. 2 Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. LPA. No.1711 of2010 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12th August 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC. No.17836 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, the son of one Motilal Hembram, a government servant, seeks compassionate appointment on the death of his father. The said Motilal Hembram passed away on 2nd October 2002 while in service. The appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on 28th February 2009 on the ground of limitation. The learned Single Judge has upheld the impugned order of 28th February 2009. Therefore, the present Appeal. The learned advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment soon after his father passed away on 2nd October 2002. His application for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. Under the impugned order, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna has rejected the claim as it was made more than five years after the death of the deceased servant. The statement that the petitioner had made application for compassionate appointment on 23rd December 2003 has been controverted by the State Government. It is the case of the State 3 Government that the application for compassionate appointment was made on 14th November 2007. The requisite documents were furnished in the year 2008. Hence, the application has rightly been rejected. We have perused the record. We find that at the time of the death of the deceased servant Sri Motilal Hembram, the appellant was a minor. Though he attained majority in the month of March 2003, he did not apply for compassionate appointment. The materials on record suggest that the application, if any, was made by the mother of the appellant and not by the appellant. In our opinion, if the appellant was seeking compassionate appointment it was he who was required to apply for the same. Further, there is no material to prove that the application was made on 23rd December 2003. The learned Single Judge has perused the records and has recorded the finding that the application for compassionate appointment was made after the expiry of specified period of 5 years. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The compassionate appointment can be offered strictly in accordance with the scheme for compassionate appointment. The application for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained after the expiry of the specified period. As recorded hereinabove, the appellant was indolent. He never applied for compassionate 4 appointment. The application that was received in the year 2007 was also made by his mother, an illiterate lady. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)