Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 983 (PAT)

Dev Prakash Roy & Ors. v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-02

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is the son of Petitioner No. 2. The mother of petitioner no. 1 was in government service and died as such on 25.5.1979. It appears that initially petitioner no. 2 who is the husband of the deceased employee claimed for compassionate appointment but did not approach this court or any other court when he was not given such appointment for a long number of years. It further appears that an application dated 28.9.2000 (Annexure-2) was filed by petitioner no. 1 claiming that he had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 30th June 1987 and again on 25.5.1998 and 10.7.1999. When no compassionate appointment was given to petitioner no. 1, this writ was filed on 5.12.2000. At present petitioner no. 1 has claimed that he should be given compassionate appointment because of death of her mother in harness on 25.5.1979. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this court in the case of Veena Kumari V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 2003(3) PLJR 114 and has submitted that the case of the appellant in that case was found within the period of limitation prescribed by the circulars of the government issued in the year 1977 and 1989 and, therefore, relief was granted to the appellant in that case. 4. The circular of 1977 prescribed two years period of limitation and by the circular of 1989, taking notice of the 1977 circular the limitation period for filing application for appointment on compassionate basis was extended to 5 years. These circulars are mentioned in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. 5. The claim of petitioner no. 2 cannot be considered at this stage on ground of delay as well as estoppel because he abandoned his claim which was followed by his son petitioner no. 1. So far as claim of petitioner no. 1 is concerned, it is found to be filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by the policy decision of 1977 which was operative for a number of years. Subsequent administrative circulars cannot operate retrospectively so as to extend the period of limitation in respect of employees who died in the year 1979. 1 is concerned, it is found to be filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by the policy decision of 1977 which was operative for a number of years. Subsequent administrative circulars cannot operate retrospectively so as to extend the period of limitation in respect of employees who died in the year 1979. Apparently petitioner was a minor and the family has remained without compassionate appointment for a number of years. In such circumstances, the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of State of Manipur V/s. Md. Rajouddin reported in 2003(4) PLJR (SC)119 will have application and on that basis this court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.