IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16311 of 2007 1. Kaushalaya Devi, Wife of late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village Jarangdiah, P.S. Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur. 2. Satya Prakash Dhiraj, son of late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village Jarangdiah, P.S. Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur. ------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chief Engineer, Water Sansthan (Irrigation) Department, Darbhanga. 3. Superintending Engineer, Western Koshi Nahar Anchal, Darbhanga. 4. Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Narhar Pramandal, Darbhanga. 5. District Establishment Dy. Collector, Darbhanga. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 13.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs order or orders, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter vide memo no.4358 dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure-32) and vide letter no. 815 dated 27.10.99 (Annexure-19) issued under the signature of Chief Engineer and District Establishment Committee respondent no.2 and 5 by which the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the application of the petitioners are barred by limitation. And further direct the 2 respondent no.2 Chief Engineer to appoint the petitioner no.2 on compassionate ground in the office of Water Resources department Koshi Project, Koshi Anchal, Darbhanga.” Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the rejection of the case of the petitioner no.2 for his appointment on compassionate ground on the basis that the said application was time barred cannot be sustained either on fact or in law, inasmuch as, the mother of the petitioner had admittedly filed an application for her appointment on compassionate ground within the prescribed period of limitation of two years but, as the said application had remained pending and no decision thereon had been taken, the subsequent application filed by the petitioner no.2, after becoming his major, could not have been held to be time barred. In this connection, reliance has been placed by him on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Reported in 2006(9)SCC 195, which in fact has also been brought on record by way of Annexure-34 to the writ application. The aforesaid submission of the learned 3 counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly after the death of the husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of the petitioner no.2 on 30.5.1981, an application was filed by the petitioner no.1 claiming appointment of her son-in-law Ratnesh Kumar Sinha but, the same was rejected on 7.7.1982. Once this application was rejected, that was the end of the matter, inasmuch as, the petitioner no.1 did not choose to put her claim at the time of seeking claim of her son-in-law. Nonetheless, the petitioner no.1 claims that she had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 29.4.1982 but, the filing of such application during the pendency of the claim of her son- in-law and that too initiated on her instance, is highly doubtful. The authorities have gone to hold that such application of the petitioner no.1 for her own appointment was not on record. Once this aspect becomes clear that the application filed by the petitioner no.2, who was only aged about three years at the time 4 of death of his father and could become major sometime only in the year 1996, could not have been held to be eligible within the prescribed period of five years from the date of death of the employee. The petitioner no.2 even otherwise was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that he did not become eligible for appointment within a period of two years, which was then the period of limitation for filing of her application on compassionate ground. This aspect of the matter infact has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases reported in 1993(1)PLJR 414 wherein it has been held that a minor cannot be appointed on compassionate ground on becoming major if he would not acquire such majority within the period of limitation which was two years till 1989 and five years thereafter. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain (supra) also is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, in that case the 5 minor was aged about 13 years and 3 months on the date of death of his father i.e. 12.9.1991 and, therefore, could become major within the period of five years of limitation. It was in this context that since Syed Khadim Hussain had become eligible and it was also an admitted fact that the application of the mother was rejected on the technical ground of not filing in the prescribed proforma that the Apex Court had in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution directed for appointment of Syed Khadim Hussain on compassionate ground. The fact of this case as noted above however is wholly distinguishable and the order, in question, being one under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court would find it difficult to issue a similar direction. The petitioner no.2 was a minor either at the time of death of his father in the year 1981 and could become major only in 1996. The scheme of compassionate appointment is also not by way of reservation that whenever the dependent would become major and would come forward to claim such appointment 6 on compassionate ground the same has to be allowed as a matter of right. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)