IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18176 of 2011 Gulabi Devi W/O Late Chhedi Thakur Resident Of Village-Kamalpur, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Araria, Bihar. ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Canal Circle, Purnea. 6. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bathnaha, District- Araria. Null Null 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Raniganj, Araria. 8. The District Magistrate-Cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Araria. …………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 02. 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on the ground that death of the father happened in the year 1980 and application was made for the first time on 02.05.2006 for compassionate appointment. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the status of the husband of the petitioner was never decided whether he was a permanent government servant or not. That issue came to be settled in the year 2006, when pension and other claims of the husband of the petitioner was decided and made over to the family. Another contention is that the Devar of the present petitioner has filed application for compassionate appointment, 2 which was never acted upon. So the issue at no point of time was considered by the respondents. Now that the status of the husband of the present petitioner has been finally settled, the cause of action for appointment arose in the year 2006. The third contention based on the decision, contained in Annexure- 5, is that the respondents can not be given advantage of their latches in not deciding the issue in all those years. There are basic fallacies in submissions made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the claim. Grant of compassionate appointment is not for providing employment through back-door method. It is to reach out to the family in distress due to sudden loss of the bread-earner in the family in unexpected circumstances. Father died 30 years ago, therefore, claim for compassionate appointment being made now, whatever be the circumstances or explanation, is far away from the object of the policy of such compassionate appointment. The respondents have done no wrong by rejecting such a claim, being stale and time barred. Accordingly, the Writ is dismissed. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)