JUDGEMENT 1. This writ petition was filed on 6.2.2009 (sic-2006 ?). The relief prayed by the petitioner was for compassionate appointment in place of his father late Dasai Yadav, who was IVth grade employee in the Bihar State Electricity Board. He died in harness over 6 years prior to his due date of superannuation. Petitioners case was that notwithstanding application having been made for compassionate appointment respondents were not granting the same. While the writ petition was pending all these years no counter affidavit was filed. Now, in August, 2009 a counter affidavit is filed stating that petitioner was required to make an application for compassionate appointment within 5 years of the death of an employee. He had not made any such application hence he cannot be given compassionate appointment now. So far as right to get compassionate appointment that is not being denied on any other ground. In fact, it was very fairly conceded that if petitioner made an application within time then there was no discretion in the matter and the petitioner had to be given compassionate appointment. 2. On the other hand, petitioner states that he is a son of IVth grade employee who is hardly aware of the provisions in relation to compassionate appointment. He states that he had made application for compassionate appointment in the year 2004 itself, while claiming death-cum-retirement dues of his father. The death- cum-retirement dues were paid. So far as the death-cum-retirement dues is concerned, even for that the petitioner had to move another writ petition to receive that payment. His application for compassionate appointment appears to have been misplaced. In the year 2007, he again obtained necessary documents, got them duly attested by the Assistant Electrical Engineer of the Board filed them all over again and still he is being arbitrarily denied compassionate appointment. 3. In my view, a perusal of the documents, as referred to above, by the petitioner prima facie established that Petitioner had in fact applied for compassionate appointment but as respondent-Board strenuously denies having received them. I will not rely on those documents because even if I do not rely on those documents still relief cannot be denied to the petitioner. The reason is that petitioner had admittedly 5 years time to make such application. His father died on 21.3.2004 therefore he had time up to 20.3.2009 to make such an application. I will not rely on those documents because even if I do not rely on those documents still relief cannot be denied to the petitioner. The reason is that petitioner had admittedly 5 years time to make such application. His father died on 21.3.2004 therefore he had time up to 20.3.2009 to make such an application. Had the counter affidavit been filed earlier as was normally expected of the Board then immediately petitioner had time to file another application and if such an application was filed petitioner was bound to get compassionate appointment. Thus, inordinate delay on part of the Board in raising this issue by their own default they now intend to defeat the right of the petitioner. This certainly cannot be permitted. Petitioner had already moved this Court seeking compassionate appointment way back in 2006 itself, which should be taken to be the end of the matter. If a counter affidavit was filed in 2006 itself, petitioner had no problem in complying with it. Now, merely because of delay in filing the counter affidavit it is seeking to deny the right to the petitioner that is grossly arbitrary and unjust that cannot be accepted by this Court. As there is no dispute of entitlement of the petitioner to receive compassionate appointment on any other ground but on this ground of delay, I direct the Board to ignore the delay and give suitable compassionate appointment to the petitioner treating petitioner to have made an application within time in accordance with law. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.