JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of Memo No. 322 dated 10.04.2010, whereby and whereunder the District Establishment Committee, Deoghar has rejected the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of belated claim. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 15.12.2002 while working as Panchayat Sevak in Block Office, Madhupur, Deoghar. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The father of the petitioner late Radhe Shayam Yadav was appointed as Panchayat Sevak and while discharging his duties in the Block Office, Madhupur, Deoghar under the respondents, died in harness on 15.12.2002. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10.08.1990, admittedly was a minor at the time of death of his father. However, the petitioner made an application on plain paper for grant of compassionate appointment before attaining the age of majority, but the same was not considered by the respondents on the ground that petitioner was a minor and the same could not be entertained. The petitioner after attaining the majority, applied for compassionate appointment on 12/13.02.2010 and the same was also rejected vide 10.04.2010 in light of the letter No. 2822 dated 27.04.1995 of Personnel, Administrative and Raj Bhasa Department, Govt. of Bihar, holding therein that the application of the petitioner was time barred as the same has been preferred after lapse of 5 years from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 10.04.2010 is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the respondents have relied on the Circular/Letter dated 27.04.1995, which talks of 5 years’ time period for making application for compassionate appointment, but the said Circular/Letter does not mention as to what steps be taken in case of minor. Learned counsel further submits that in absence of any Rule or Guideline, the respondents would have considered the case of the petitioner as the application of the petitioner was submitted soon after attaining the age of majority and the same was not beyond the period of 5 years. He places heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Binay Kumar Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board [W.P.(S) No.2088 of 2002], Manju Singh @ Manju Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No.4115 of 2012] as well as reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 . Therefore, he prays for quashing of the impugned order and a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Admittedly, the application of the petitioner was made after 5 years from the date of death of his father. The Circular/Letter dated 27.05.1995 is applicable in the case of the petitioner which talks of 5 years’ period of limitation and as such, the application of the petitioner was time barred as the same has been made after lapse of 5 years from the date of death of his father. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported judgment of this Court in case of Sushil Kr. Vengra Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2005) 2 JLJR 585 . 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: I. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and after attaining the majority, he made application for compassionate appointment. No Rule has been placed on record to show that there is specific provision as to what should be done in case of minor dependents and there would be any relaxation of age in case they attains majority within prescribed period for submitting application. II. No Rule has been placed on record to show that there is specific provision as to what should be done in case of minor dependents and there would be any relaxation of age in case they attains majority within prescribed period for submitting application. II. No decision has been taken by the respondents on the pending representation of the mother of petitioner. III. Nowhere, it has been pleaded nor argued by the respondents that consideration of the case of the petitioner was against the norms and guidelines for compassionate appointment. Object of the Scheme of the compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the deprived family members of the deceased employee. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner’s family was not deprived and there is other means of livelihood. IV. The petitioner was major at the time of rejection of the claim, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. V. The Circular/Letter dated 27.04.1995, which talks of 5 years’ time period for making application for compassionate appointment, does not apply in the instant case as the said Circular/Letter is silent in the matter of compassionate appointment of claimant who is a minor. VI. The issue fell for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 , wherein it has been held that ‘The widow had applied for appointment within prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years’ old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application. VII. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application. VII. The Judgment relied upon by the respondents is of no help to them as there is no Rule to show that in case of minors also, the limitation is 5 years. 7. As a squitter to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, impugned order dated 10.04.2010 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order regarding the compassionate appointment, within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed.