JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 2550 of 2019 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 35 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 3. In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. This Interlocutory Application stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 221 of 2019 5. This intra-court appeal is directed against the decision dated 19.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1682 of 2010. 6. The writ petitioner-appellant made a claim for appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his mother who died in harness on 26.03.2009 while working on the post of Peon under respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that the Jharkhand Academic Council Board in its meeting held on 12.08.2009 had recommended his case but in subsequent meeting held on 30.03.2010 it was decided not to give effect thereto. Hence, the writ petition was filed. 7. A counter affidavit was filed the contents whereof have been noticed in the impugned order. The respondents took specific plea that the writ petitioner-appellant had concealed the fact that his father was in government service at the time of the death of his mother. This fact later on came to the knowledge of the Council from the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department through letter dated 05.10.2009 during verification. Moreover, another point was raised that, as per the scheme of the compassionate appointment framed by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms Department bearing no. 1339 dated 5th October, 1991, if both the husband and the wife are in service and if anyone of them dies, in such case, the dependent would not get the benefit on compassionate ground. 8. In the aforesaid background of factual matrix, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 9. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that as a matter of fact, father of the writ petitioner, though was employed on a government post but was living in separation without any divorce from his mother and as such he was fully dependent upon the deceased. 9. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that as a matter of fact, father of the writ petitioner, though was employed on a government post but was living in separation without any divorce from his mother and as such he was fully dependent upon the deceased. It is contended that though the learned Single Judge has stated that the writ petitioner-appellant has concealed the fact of his father having been employed in government service but, in fact, this was disclosed in the application filed for appointment on compassionate ground itself which was brought on record as Annexure-3 and is dated 16.04.2009. It is also contended that his father had sworn affidavit to the aforesaid extent (Annexure-4) in which it has been stated that he was living separately and both sons were being looked after by his wife. On the strength of the aforesaid, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has passed the order without noticing the same. 10. However, it is apparent from the impugned order that specific view has been taken by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner, at the time of making application for compassionate appointment, did conceal the fact that his father was in government service. That fact came to the notice of J.A.C. after meeting dated 12.08.2009 and the same was further verified by communication of the Executive Engineer, Design Division, Irrigation No. II Circle Ranchi through letter dated 23rd October, 2009 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition). Moreover, a view has been taken by the learned Single Judge that as per the scheme of the compassionate appointment (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition), the dependent of the deceased spouse would not be entitled for compassionate appointment if one of the spouse is still in service. The learned Single Judge has recorded that no cogent document on record could be brought by the writ-petitioner to prove that his father was living in separation from his wife and the writ petitioner was wholly dependent upon the deceased. 11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has placed reliance upon a decision of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (1998) 0 Supreme (Raj) 75. 11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has placed reliance upon a decision of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (1998) 0 Supreme (Raj) 75. The Rajasthan High Court has held in the aforesaid case that, where the father and mother both have been in service, a person cannot claim the benefit of the Rules on the death of his mother unless he pleads and proves before the competent authority that he had solely been dependent upon her and his father would not take the responsibility of his maintenance or his financial condition is such that he cannot afford to maintain even himself. 12. However, even if it is assumed that he had mentioned these facts in the application and his father had given an affidavit to that extent, that would not be a conclusive proof that father and mother were living separately as in a given case the father may swear such type of affidavit so that the son could be benefited. There is no pre-existing document, i.e., previous to the death of the mother of the writ petitioner indicating that the parents were in estranged relationship. The learned Single Judge also has noticed that there is no sufficient material to show that they were living separately and father was not taking care of the son. That apart, the compassionate scheme, in clear terms lays down that if both father and mother are in service then on the death of one of them, the dependent would not be entitled for the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. 13. A Full Bench of Patna High Court in Niraj Kumar Mallick Vs. the State of Bihar and analogous matters reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 951 , while dealing with the issue of clarification issued by the State of Bihar in this regard, has held that even if such persons were not living together, the dependent would not be entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment. The Full Bench has observed that the compassionate appointment as per the well settled legal proposition, is not a source of recruitment. It is a policy decision based on a sound public policy provided in the clarification for helping dependents of the employee, who dies in harness, at the time of crisis. The Full Bench has observed that the compassionate appointment as per the well settled legal proposition, is not a source of recruitment. It is a policy decision based on a sound public policy provided in the clarification for helping dependents of the employee, who dies in harness, at the time of crisis. The Full Bench has held on the clarification issued by the State of Bihar that “gainfully employed” means such employment from which the employed dependent of the deceased Government servant may provide sustenance or can maintain other dependents, the same has to be looked at “objectively” and not “subjectively”. It is not for the authority considering the application for compassionate appointment to find out as to whether the dependent in employment is willing to take care of other dependents or not. It would also not be its concern that the gainfully employed person is actually providing sustenance to the other dependents or not. What is to be considered is as to whether he can provide it or not. 14. In the case in hand also, even it is assumed that at the time of making an application for appointment on compassionate ground, the father is trying to help his son in getting such appointment by filing affidavit that he is not living with his son and taking care of him but the question would be whether he can take care or not? There is nothing on record to show that the father was not competent and capable of helping his son at the time of crisis. 15. In such a situation, having regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that no good reason or ground could be raised by the appellant warranting interference in the impugned decision. 16. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.