JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties has raised any complaint regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No.3646 of 2018 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 749 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard. 4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.3646 of 2018 is allowed and delay of 749 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.205 of 2018 6. This instant appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3133 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as: The writ petitioner has sought for a direction by filing writ petition before this Court, invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his grandfather, who died prior to 1990 and also in view of the fact that he is now working in place of his deceased grandfather continuously for a period of more than 17 years. The learned Single Judge after considering the submission advanced by the State-respondent, has dismissed the writ petition by putting reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 680 . The aforesaid order is the subject matter of consideration in the present appeal. 8. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in dismissing the writ petition without taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner is working as ‘chowkidar’ in place of his grandfather since last 17 years. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in dismissing the writ petition without taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner is working as ‘chowkidar’ in place of his grandfather since last 17 years. 9. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned S.C-I, appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that the post of chowkidar being not the post under the regular establishment, as such there cannot be an appointment on compassionate ground. Further, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that his so called grandfather had died in the year 1960 and in his place he is seeking an appointment on compassionate ground by filing writ petition in the year 2015, which is after lapse of more than 55 years, and hence petitioner’s claim is also to be rejected on this ground. 10. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order, has found that the writ petitioner-appellant is claiming to work as ‘chowkidar’ since last 17 years. He further claims that he is working as ‘chowkidar’ by virtue of the fact that his grandfather, who was working on the said post, died in the year 1960, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Admittedly, the post of chowkidar is not a substantive post under the regular establishment of the State. It is settled position of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is only to be provided to the dependent of the deceased employee, who died in harness by rendering services in the substantive post. Herein, since the post of chowkidar itself is not a substantive post, therefore, there is no question of appointment on compassionate ground. Further the petitioner is claiming to be appointed on compassionate ground in place of his grandfather, who has died in the year 1960 while working as ‘chowkidar’, but the question is, can the grievance of the writ petitioner be said to be genuine and can he be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his grandfather sometime in the year 1960? The answer of this Court is in negative for the reason that the post of chowkidar is not the post in the substantive establishment of the State Government and further the post of chowkidar has been held to be not hereditary as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra). Although, the learned Single Judge, has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) but according to our considered view, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court is in different context i.e. in the context whether the post of chowkidar can be said to be hereditary or not? However, the petitioner is not seeking a direction by way of inheritance rather he is seeking a direction from the Court to get appointment on compassionate ground. 11. According to our considered view, the said relief cannot be granted to the writ petitioner by providing appointment on compassionate ground due to the fact that the post of chowkidar is not the post under the regular establishment and further, he is seeking appointment by filing a writ petition in the year 2015 on account of the death of his grandfather sometime in the year 1960. Even he cannot be appointed on account of inheritance, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra). The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter in the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2072 of 2007 on the same subject, holding therein that the appointment of chowkidar cannot be on hereditary ground and in consequence of such decision, all the appointments of chowkidar on the basis of inheritance, after 19.04.2010, have been terminated. 12. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned requires no interference, since the same suffers from no infirmity. 13. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.