Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 492 (PAT)

Mani Manjhi v. State of Bihar

2006-06-14

body2006
ORDER During the course of hearing, it was jointly requested to take up the matter for final hearing in view of the urgency of the matter. The matter is accordingly heard. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondent-authority and it is alleged that the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment is violative of the provision of the Government Policy manifested in Memo No. 3/C2-2067/90 Ka 13293 dated 15th October, 1995, wherein, according to the petitioner the minimum age limit for making application for appointment on compassionate ground has been withdrawn. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite that his application has been rejected on the ground of it being time barred. 3. The father of the petitioner, who was working as a Chowkidar within Mufassil (Nawada) Police Station in the District of Nawada, died while in service in 1998. The eldest son of the deceased employee applied for his appointment on compassionate ground, which came to be rejected on the ground that it was suffering from want of qualification for the post applied for. The application from other qualified member was invited and in consequence thereof the grandson of the deceased employee had applied which was, also, turned down on the ground that the policy does not admit the category of the grandson for the purpose of appointment on the compassionate basis. 4. Thereafter, the present petitioner, who is claiming to be the youngest son of the deceased employee applied for his appointment whose claim has been denied by the respondent-authority on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the age prescribed for the appointment in the government service. He was informed by an order dated 23.8.2004 recorded by the District Compassionate Committee, accordingly. 5. Now, the short question which emerges for consideration and determination in this petition is as to whether the petitioner's application, which came to be rejected is violative of the Policy of the Government with regard to the compassionate appointment. 6. The attention of this Court has been invited to the Letter No. 3/C 2-60108/94-Ka 2822 dated 27th April, 1995, wherein, the time limit for making an application for appointment on compassionate ground is prescribed by 5 years after the death of the employee during the period of service. 7. 6. The attention of this Court has been invited to the Letter No. 3/C 2-60108/94-Ka 2822 dated 27th April, 1995, wherein, the time limit for making an application for appointment on compassionate ground is prescribed by 5 years after the death of the employee during the period of service. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had not applied within the stipulated period of time. The Government Order on which the petitioner has relied upon has been either altered or modified subsequently. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be eligible for the consideration for being appointed on com passionate basis after the death of the father on the ground of limitation prescribed in the Policy of the Government. This Court cannot, extend the period of limitation prescribed in the Policy itself. 8. With the result, this court has to raise its hands in helplessness and to reject the petition being time barred. However, since it is a policy matter and if the Government thinks it appropriate may consider for enhancement in age for submitting the application in future but it all remains within the policy domain. The petition shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.