ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the decision as contained in Memo No. 680/Establishment, Deoghar dated 27.08.2012, by which claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected as being time barred. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ application is that petitioner's father Raj Kumar Sah was a Class-IV employee posted at Referral Hospital, Madhupur (now Sub-divisional Hospital) who died in harness on 02.11.2006. At the relevant time petitioner was minor and as such, his mother Shyama Devi applied for compassionate appointment which was recommended by the In-charge Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Madhupur vide letter no. 230 dated 19.12.2006. The matter was considered by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar vide Annexure-4 and a direction was given to the Incharge Medical Officer, Madhupur for production of certain documents required for consideration of case for appointment. Unfortunately, petitioner's mother died on 01.06.2007 before she could be appointed and the matter remained pending. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 11.02.2010 along with required documents and certificates. Shilpi Rani, younger sister of the petitioner was minor at the relevant time and as such petitioner is the only legal heirs of Late Raj Kumar Sah and her wife Shyama Devi. Petitioner comes from backward class and comes under below poverty line having annual income assessed by the Circle Officer as Rs.24,000/-per annum. Though the petitioner had submitted his application on 11.02.2010 for appointment on compassionate ground but he was asked to bring Succession Certificate by the office of Civil Surgeon– cum–Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar. The petitioner preferred Succession Certificate Case No. 5 of 2010 which was allowed on 19.01.2010. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application on 30.04.2012 before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, giving entire details. The process of appointment was initiated and the petitioner was asked to appear in Computing Typing Examination to be held on 16.08.2012. In its meeting dated 17.08.2012 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected in view of letter no. 2822 dated 27.04.1995, issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms on the ground of delay. Said information has been communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 680/Establishment dated 27th August, 2012. 4. Mr. 2822 dated 27.04.1995, issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms on the ground of delay. Said information has been communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 680/Establishment dated 27th August, 2012. 4. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that case for appointment on compassionate ground ought not to have been rejected by the respondents authorities on the ground of being time barred as earlier her mother had applied for appointment on compassionate ground but after her death the petitioner being legally entitled, applied for his appointment. On the direction of the respondents authorities the petitioner filed Succession Certificate Case which was decreed in his favour in the year 2012 and as such, rejection on the ground of delay is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-15 of the writ petition which has been issued by Government of Bihar vide Notification dated 28th November, 1956. Said Annexure-15 of the writ petition reads as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and in supersession of previous order on this subject the Governor of Bihar hereby makes the following rules. Where the State Government are satisfied that the operation of any rule regulating the conditions of service of State Government servants, or any class of such Government servants, causes undue hardship in any particular case, they may by order dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as they may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” By referring aforesaid Annexure-15, learned counsel submits that one can infer that this is a fit case for condonation of delay by relaxation of rules as there is delay of 15 days only and earlier mother of the petitioner had applied in time and there was no delay on her part in making such application. As the first application seeking appointment on compassionate basis was moved within five years of death of employee and, therefore, after death of mother, the petitioner's application should not have been rejected on the ground of delay. 5. Mrs. As the first application seeking appointment on compassionate basis was moved within five years of death of employee and, therefore, after death of mother, the petitioner's application should not have been rejected on the ground of delay. 5. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned Standing Counsel No. 5 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground after five years of death of his father and as such, his application has been rightly rejected. It has also been argued that the petitioner has delayed to comply direction to submit requisite documents and as such, no relaxation can be granted to him. 6. Having heard the parties and considering rival submission of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that mother of the petitioner had applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after death of the employee. However, the respondents did not consider the case and in the mean time she died. Thereafter, the petitioner being eligible for such appointment applied before the respondents authorities. However, it is the respondents who demanded Succession Certificate which caused further delay. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for consideration for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground considering the fact that it was the respondents authorities who had demanded Succession Certificate and after issuance of said Succession Certificate vide Succession Case No. 5/2010 petitioner approached before the respondents authorities which should not have been denied. 7. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, the respondents no. 2 - Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pass appropriate order considering the fact that petitioner had applied in time and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months thereafter. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found entitled for appointment, the same should be issued to him within a further time of one months thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed