JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. The petitioner is represented by learned counsel, Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha and the State is represented by Mr. Sunil Singh, JC to SC Mines. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 177 (ii) dated 02.02.2013 issued by the District Establishment Deputy Collector, Ranchi (respondent No. 4), whereby it has been informed to the respondent No. 2 that the representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of this petitioner has been rejected by the District Establishment Committee, Ranchi on the ground that the representation is barred by limitation, in spite of the fact that the mother of the petitioner had earlier submitted representation before the respondents-authority for appointment of her son namely, Jaynandan Prasad, on compassionate ground but the same was rejected on the ground that Jaynandan Prasad did not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter, the mother of the petitioner filed representation for appointment of this petitioner on compassionate ground. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner namely, Lalan Mistry, was employed as Peon in the office of respondent No. 2. He died in harness on 21.10.2004 while he was posted as Peon. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner, namely, Devpato Devi filed representation before the respondents-authority for appointment of her son namely, Jaynandan Prasad on compassionate ground but the District Establishment Compassionate Committee rejected her representation vide letter No. 1337(ii) dated 30.08.2012 on the ground that the said Jaynandan Prasad does not fulfill the required qualification. When the said representation was rejected by the respondents- authority, she again filed representation before the respondents-authority requesting therein to appoint her daughter (petitioner herein) on compassionate ground. This time the representation of the mother of the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily rejected on the ground that the same is time barred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents-authority rejecting the representation of the mother of the petitioner for appointment of this petitioner on compassionate ground is arbitrary, unjust, mala-fide and without jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents-authority rejecting the representation of the mother of the petitioner for appointment of this petitioner on compassionate ground is arbitrary, unjust, mala-fide and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner died in harness while he was posted as Peon and rejecting the representation of the mother of the petitioner on the ground of delay cannot be sustained in the eyes of law since, earlier she had also filed representation for compassionate appointment of his son but the same was rejected on the ground that her son did not fulfill the requisite qualification required for compassionate appointment. The petitioner fulfilled all the required norms for being appointed on compassionate ground and hence, she deserves to be appointed without any further delay. Learned counsel further submitted that the action of the respondents in causing inordinate delay in giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground is amounts to miscarriage of justice and the petitioner is legally entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground to meet the hardship of her family on account of death of her father. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 2009 and also on one of the judgments delivered by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1140 of 2013 (Dablu Bedia vs. CCL, Ranchi and Others). 6. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the wife of late Lalan Mistry, who was posted as Peon in the office of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi and died in harness, had applied for compassionate appointment of her son Jaynandan Prasad, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Level Compassionate Committee. The case was placed before the District Level Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 28.07.2012, where it has been found that the educational qualification of said Jaynandan Prasad is Class-VIII pass. On examining the documents, it was found by the committee that the deed No. 6454, by which Shri Jaynandan Prasad has been adopted by late Lalan Mistry, mentions the date of adoption is 10.01.1972 whereas, the date of birth of the adopted son is 10.01.1975. Thus, the so-called documents of adoption is not genuine. On examining the documents, it was found by the committee that the deed No. 6454, by which Shri Jaynandan Prasad has been adopted by late Lalan Mistry, mentions the date of adoption is 10.01.1972 whereas, the date of birth of the adopted son is 10.01.1975. Thus, the so-called documents of adoption is not genuine. Apart from this, as per the resolution of the Finance Department, the minimum qualification for appointment on compassionate ground is Matric Pass, whereas, the qualification of said Jaynandan Prasad is Class-VIII pass. On these grounds, the District Level Compassionate Committee rejected the representation of the mother of Jaynandan Prasad. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner, namely, Devpato Devi, again filed representation for appointment of her daughter Sita Kumari (petitioner) on compassionate ground, which was forwarded to the Establishment Deputy Collector, Ranchi. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was placed before the District Level Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 15.01.2013, where the Committee, after examining the representation of the petitioner, found that the same is time barred since the father of the petitioner died on 21.10.2004, whereas, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed on 31.10.2012. On these grounds, the District Level Compassionate Committee decided to reject the representation of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel hence submits that in view of the submissions made above, the present writ application is devoid of merit and the same is liable to dismissed. 7. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is of no help rather, it goes against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (supra) in para 15 has held as under:- “..........That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.....” 8. The case of this Hon’ble Court relied upon by the petitioner relates to NCWA, which is prevalent in Coal India Limited. The State Government has got a different scheme and guidelines/rules for appointment on compassionate ground. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.....” 8. The case of this Hon’ble Court relied upon by the petitioner relates to NCWA, which is prevalent in Coal India Limited. The State Government has got a different scheme and guidelines/rules for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is not covered by the scheme of the State Government. In the instant case there is limitation of five years and as per the scheme of State Government, no person can be appointed beyond that period and as such, the impugned order has rightly been passed. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and the circulars of the State Government, the writ application being devoid of any merit, is hereby, dismissed.