JUDGMENT 1. By Court This letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04/04/2006 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1133 of 1997 (R), whereby the writ petition, filed by the respondent no. 1 herein, was allowed and, thereby the award of the Labour Court was set aside by which the appellant Shashi Bhushan Choudhary was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages. 2. The relevant facts, in short, are that the father of the appellant was employed in the Government Vaccine Institute, Namkum, Ranchi and he retired from service on 31/12/1980. Subsequently, he died and then his widow made an application for appointment of this appellant on compassionate ground. The then Chief Minister directed the Superintendent, Government Vaccine Institute, Namkum, Ranchi to consider the case of this appellant for appointment on compassionate ground and, thereafter, he was appointed on compassionate ground as special case as Mazdoor in the Government Vaccine Institute, Namkum, Ranchi by issue of letter dated 19/10/1982. The appellant joined the service but he was terminated from service by issue of a letter dated 26/09/1983 since his appointment on compassionate ground was not approved. 3. The appellant, thereafter, challenged his order of termination from service by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 195/1987 (R). The Division Bench of this Court observed that the service of the writ petitioner was terminated in 1983 whereas the writ petition was filed on 25/02/1987, i.e. after about four years and, therefore, on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition dismissed the writ petition by order dated 03/03/1987. The appellant, thereafter, challenged the said order of dismissal of the writ petition before the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. No. 15230/1987 (AN) but the Supreme Court also by order dated 15/11/1989 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Thereafter, the appellant raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the Government to the Labour Court, Ranchi to adjudicate as to whether the appellant Shashi Bhushan Choudhary was a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act and if so, whether the termination of service was proper, if not, what relief he is entitled to. The said reference was registered as Reference Case No. 7/1994. The said reference was registered as Reference Case No. 7/1994. The Labour Court by its award dated 18/09/1996 held the termination of the appellant to be not justified and proper and thereby passed an order for his instatement in service with full back wages. 4. The aforesaid award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent No. 1 herein, i.e. Government Vaccine Institute, Namkum, Ranchi, by filing CWJC No. 1133 of 1997 (R), which was ultimately allowed by the impugned judgment dated 04/04/2006 and the award of the Labour Court was set aside holding that the termination of the present appellant was justified. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal. 5. From the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court did not decide the point as to whether the present appellant was a workman and whether the present respondent the Government Vaccine Institute was an industry? The learned Single Judge further held that before deciding as to whether termination of the appellant was proper or not the Labour Court should have enquired as to whether his appointment was valid or not since apparently the appointment was made on political pairavi. The learned Single Judge further held that there is no provision under the law under which on the death after superannuation of a Government employee, any appointment would be given to his dependant on compassionate ground and, therefore, such appointment made, was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Ughal, learned appearing for the appellant very fairly admitted that there is no provision under the law by which a dependant of a Government employee, who died after completion of his age of superannuation, can be given any appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father/guardian. 7. There is no dispute of the fact that the appointment of the appellant was made only at the instance of the Chief Minister without any advertisement and without following the mode of recruitment. 8. Mr. Ughal further submitted that the appellant has continued in service for a petty long time and, therefore, his service ought not to have terminated. 9. This submission of Mr. Ughal cannot be accepted in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. 8. Mr. Ughal further submitted that the appellant has continued in service for a petty long time and, therefore, his service ought not to have terminated. 9. This submission of Mr. Ughal cannot be accepted in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. reported in (2009)IIILLJ305SC ", wherein it has specifically been held that if the appointment has been made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, i.e. without following the modes of recruitment then in that case, even if, such employee has continued for a longer period in service, it does not give him any right to continue in service. 10. In the present case, as we have noticed above that the appointment of the appellant was made without following the due process of the appointment and was therefore in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the appointment of the appellant is directly under the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. reported in (2009)IIILLJ305SC " (Supra) and, as such, he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 11. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, having found no merit, this letters patent appeal is dismissed. Appeal allowed.