IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5137 of 2010
1. PINTU KR.SINGH S/O LATE DADHICHI SINGH R/O VILL
HARHACHA, P.S.BAHERI, DISTT-DARBHANGA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.
OF BIHAR, AURANGABAD, BIHAR
4. JOINT SECRETARY WATER RESOUCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.
OF BIHAR, PATNA
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH KOEL DAM CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION NO. 1 SHIVIR DALTENGANJ WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT , GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA
6. SECRETARY/ COMMISSIONER WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF JHARKHAND , RANCHI
7. CHIEF ENGINEER , WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
DALTANGANJ, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND
-----------
2. 16.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the State.
The petitioner seeks the relief to be considered
for compassionate appointment on account of the death
of his father in harness on 16.4.1985 while he was
posted at Palamu now in the State of Jharkhand
consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar.
It is submitted that the mother of the
petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in
1986 on which no action was taken for a decision.
Merely because the State of Bihar has been now
bifurcated and death may have occurred in an area
which falls in the newly created State of Jharkhand,
shall not defeat the obligation of the State of Bihar to
2
consider the claim. It is apparent that the delay lies at
the doors of the respondents who did not take any
decision on the claim of the mother of the petitioner
which shall be deemed to be pending and therefore the
petitioner has a right to be considered in continuation of
the same. Strong reliance is placed on a communication
dated 22.8.2009 of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Aurangabad to support the assertion that
he has opined that it merits consideration.
Counsel for the State emphasizes the delay to
submit that the application merits no consideration.
From the communication dated 22.8.2009, it is
apparent that the application for compassionate
appointment preferred by the mother of the petitioner
was forwarded for consideration when it was returned on
18.4.1987 with objections. If that be the correct
position, it was for the mother of the petitioner to pursue
matters appropriately. Any claim for compassionate
appointment arising out of the death of the deceased
came to an end on 18.4.1987. There cannot be different
claims for compassionate appointment by different
family members, at different points of time. There has to
be only one claim for compassionate appointment on the
death of the deceased in harness.
On the own showing of the petitioner he was
3
one year old on the date that his father died. He has
applied for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2005
nearly 20 years 6 months later. To this Court, the very
fact that he has survived all these years, matured into
an adult aware of his rights pursuing the litigation
satisfies the Court that he was not a destitute in penury
with a compulsive need for compassionate appointment.
He had the wherewithal to survive for these long years.
In any event of the matter, he was a minor on
the date of death ineligible to apply. The time period of
two years within which the application was to be
submitted computed from the date of death expired
during his minority. On account of his minority, the
petitioner cannot claim a vested right to be considered
for compassionate appointment based on family lineage
and the consequent right to the post.
In A.I.R. 1998 SC 2612 AIR 1998 SUPREME
COURT 2612 “State of U.P. v. Paras Nath” noticing a
claim for compassionate appointment made 17 years
after the death of the deceased, the Court has observed
as follows at Paragraph-5
“5. The purpose of providing
employment to a dependant of a
Government servant dying in harness in
preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the
hardship caused to the family of the
employee on account of his unexpected
death while still in service. To alleviate the
distress of the family, such appointments
are permissible on compassionate grounds
4
provided there are Rules providing for such
appointment. The purpose is to provide
immediate financial assistance to the family
of a deceased Government servant. None of
these considrations can operate when the
application is made after a long period of
time such as seventeen years in the present
case.”
There is no merit in this application. It is
accordingly dismissed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)