JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. I.A.No.9297 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 28 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. 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. Accordingly, I.A.No.9297 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 28 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.253 of 2019 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6331 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the decision of the authority, by which, the claim made by the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been rejected on the ground of over age. 2. The brief facts of the case are required to be enumerated which reads as hereunder:- The father of the appellant-writ petitioner, late Ram Padarath Thakur died in road accident while he was serving as Sub Inspector of Police on 29.06.2015 leaving behind two sons, one unmarried daughter and widow wife. The writ petitioner has filed an application before the Director General Cum Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand on 25.01.2016 for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground against the post of Clerk. The case of the writ petitioner was recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide letter no.1030 dated 05.02.2016 to the Police Headquarter for consideration of case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The Police Headquarter vide letter as contained in Memo No.300 dated 29.02.2016 has directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi to proceed for consideration of case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The Police Headquarter vide letter as contained in Memo No.300 dated 29.02.2016 has directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi to proceed for consideration of case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The Senior Superintendent of Police has recommended the case of the writ petitioner and forwarded it before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by making a request for consideration of case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by granting relaxation in the upper age limit since the writ petitioner on the date of making application was found to be over age to the extent of five years eight months and thirteen days but the Joint Secretary, Home Department vide letter no.4157 dated 28.07.2017 has communicated the decision to the Police Headquarter stating therein that there is no provision of granting age relaxation to the dependent son of the deceased employee in the matter of consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. The said decision has been challenged by the writ petitioner by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide W.P.(S) No.6331 of 2017 but the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the said decision of the State authority refusing to grant relaxation in the age of the writ petitioner, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the State authority ought to have granted age relaxation for the purpose of consideration of case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the State authority ought to have granted age relaxation for the purpose of consideration of case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. He has relied upon a circular issued on 01.12.2015 by the Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa Department, as contained in annexure-6 to the paper book which has been issued in supersession to the earlier circular as contained in circular no.13293 dated 05.10.1991 issued by the Unified State of Bihar, where the provision has been made for granting relaxation as would be evident from the contents of Clause-6 thereof but according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no reference for grant of relaxation to the dependent if the applicant is son and as such, it is totally arbitrary leaving the sons from the fold of granting relaxation, if the son of the deceased employee is found to be over age for getting appointment in the government service, in view thereof, submission has been made that it is a fit case where the appellant-writ petitioner being the son of the deceased employee, was required to be considered for grant of relaxation under Clause-6 of the circular dated 01.12.2015. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further relied upon the provision of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which contains a provision of relaxation and as such, when the State authority has got power to relax as under the provision of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, the same ought to have been applied in the case of the writ petitioner but having not done so, the great injustice has been imparted to the writ petitioner which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, Mr. 4. Per contra, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and by virtue of the impugned order, the claim of the writ petitioner for granting relaxation in the age has been refused and rightly been refused, since there is no provision for relaxation to be made in the age of a candidate, if the candidate is found to be more than the age prescribed for making entry in the government service. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant about applicability of the circular dated 01.12.2015, the same has seriously been disputed by making a submission that the father of the writ petitioner since was died on 29.06.2015 and as such, it is the settled position of law that the circular which is to be made applicable in the matter of compassionate appointment which is in vogue on the death of concerned employee in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground and admittedly herein, the father of the writ petitioner has died on 29.06.2015 and the circular upon which the writ petitioner is insisting upon, has been issued on 01.12.2015, hence, the same cannot be given retrospective application. Furthermore, even under the said circular, the writ petitioner will not be entitled for consideration of grant of relaxation in the age since being the son, he is not required to be considered in view of the provision made under Clause-6 of the Circular dated 01.12.2015, wherein the son has been left out from the consideration zone in the matter of relaxation of the age. It has further been submitted that if the writ petitioner at all aggrieved with the circular dated 01.12.2015, he ought to have questioned the specific provision as has been made under Clause-6 of the circular dated 01.12.2015. It has further been submitted that if the writ petitioner at all aggrieved with the circular dated 01.12.2015, he ought to have questioned the specific provision as has been made under Clause-6 of the circular dated 01.12.2015. Further submission has been made that the appointment on compassionate ground since is contrary to the principle laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the appointment is strictly to be made upon the terms and conditions of the scheme, hence the consideration is only to be made on the basis of the circular in vogue and in the present case, the circular issued by the State as on 05.10.1991, making it applicable up to the issuance of the circular dated 01.12.2015 as would be evident from the second paragraph of circular dated 01.12.2015 which stipulates about its application from the date of its issuance wherein there is no provision to grant relaxation to a candidate, if such candidate is found to be over age. On the basis of the above ground, submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in passing the impugned order. 5. This court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also after going across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, wherein the decision of the State authority by which, relaxation in the age of the writ petitioner, who has been found to be over age by five years eight months and thirteen days has been refused, the said decision has been declined to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 6. It is settled position of law that the relaxation is only to be granted, if such provision is provided under the statute or the executive instruction and in absence thereof, if any relaxation would be granted, the same would be said to be without jurisdiction, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803 , wherein at paragraph nos.28 and 29, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that:- "28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803 , wherein at paragraph nos.28 and 29, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that:- "28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates, who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." The Hon’ble Apex Court again in the case of Sanjay K. Dixit and Ors. Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 260 putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 260 putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors.(supra) has been pleased to hold that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved and even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, we have proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. The first argument which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant by questioning the decision of the authority in not granting relaxation in the age by making reference of circular dated 01.12.2015, wherein under Clause-6, the provision for granting relaxation has been made to husband/wife/mother/father/unmarried daughter/widow daughter-in-law, widow/divorcee/deserted daughter/married daughter leaving under the category for consideration of relaxation in age to the son. In that view of the matter, submission has been made that when the relaxation has been decided to be granted to other category of dependent, why not to the son? We, in order to answer the said submission, first deem it fit and proper to consider about the applicability of circular dated 01.12.2015 on the basis of cause of action for appointment on compassionate ground as being claimed by the appellant-writ petitioner. It is not in dispute that the cause of action for getting appointment on compassionate ground will be said to be accrued on the date of death of bread earner which in the instant case it is 29.06.2015, the day when the father of the writ petitioner has died. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has made an application for consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground on the strength of the decision of the State authority which was taken by way of scheme as contained in circular no.13293 dated 05.10.1991. 7. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has made an application for consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground on the strength of the decision of the State authority which was taken by way of scheme as contained in circular no.13293 dated 05.10.1991. 7. We have critically examined the circular dated 05.10.1991 which contains no such provision to grant relaxation to any category of the dependents of the deceased employee and that is the reason, the State authority has rejected the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police for granting relaxation in age of the appellant-writ petitioner, who on the date of death of his father has been found to be over age by five years eight months and 13 days. 8. The State of Jharkhand has come out with executive instruction on 01.12.2015 containing therein the provision to grant relaxation to some category of dependents but the question is as to whether the executive instruction can be allowed to be implemented with retrospective effect. This Court in order to answer this issue has considered the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank and Anr. Vrs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 , wherein the question fell for consideration is whether the scheme passed in 2005 providing for ex gratia payment or the scheme then in vogue in 1993 providing for compassionate appointment is applicable to the respondent (para-12). The issue about applicability of the scheme has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in another judgment rendered in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 , wherein it has been laid down that the claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The Hon’ble Apex Court applying the principle laid down in the case State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) has considered the factual aspect in the case of Canara Bank and Anr. Vrs. The Hon’ble Apex Court applying the principle laid down in the case State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) has considered the factual aspect in the case of Canara Bank and Anr. Vrs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra), wherein the fact leading to the said case was that the father of the dependent died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a clerk in the bank and the dependent has applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme “Dying in Harness Scheme” dated 08.05.1993 which was in force at that time. The bank has rejected the dependent’s claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the dependent. Again on 07.11.2001, the bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of the dependent’s employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when circular no.154 of 1993 dated 08.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur (supra), the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme providing for ex gratia payment. The circular dated 14.02.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993. In view of the discussion as has been made hereinabove, since the writ petitioner has made an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of circular dated 05.10.1991 and the circular dated 01.12.2015 being the subsequent one which has been issued after the death of the father of the writ petitioner herein, as such, the circular dated 01.12.2015 will not have its retrospective application. It would also be relevant to refer the very second paragraph of circular dated 01.12.2015, wherein the circular dated 01.12.2015 is in supersession to the circular dated 05.10.1991 since as would be evident from the specific condition as contained therein that henceforth in place of circular dated 05.10.1991, the circular dated 01.12.2015 will be applicable, the part of the said content of the circular dated 01.12.2015 is being quoted as hereunder:- bl lEcU/k esa ifjofrZr fLrfFk voa çHkkoh ifji=ks ds vk/kkj ij dkjZokbZ esa mRiUu dfBukb;ksa dks –f"ViFk esa j[krs gq, lE;d fopkjksijkar jkT; esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfä vc fuEufyf[kr ;kstuk ds vuq:i djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the provision of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 for better appreciation of his argument, this Court deem it fit and proper to refer the provision of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which reads as hereunder:- “54. Except as otherwise expressly provided in rules regulating the methods of recruitment to a particular service or post, a person whose age exceeds twenty-five years and in the case of a person belonging to the scheduled castes and backward tribes whose age exceeds 28 years may not be admitted into pensionable service of Government. The State Government however, may relax this rule in special cases.” It is evident from the provision of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which expressly provides to regulate the methods of recruitment to a particular service or post, a person whose age exceeds twenty-five years and in the case of a person belonging to the scheduled castes and backward tribes whose age exceeds 28 years may not be admitted into pensionable service of Government. The State Government however, may relax this rule in special cases, meaning thereby, the power of relaxation can be considered by the State Government in special circumstances that to in respect of a person belonging to scheduled castes and backward tribes whose age exceeds 28 years and as such, they are not been able to be admitted to the pensionable government service but here, the case is not for a direct recruitment or the writ petitioner is not belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes category. However, no such fact has been brought by way of pleading about the applicability of provision of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. Since it has orally been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, we have thought it proper to consider it and accordingly, on its consideration about its applicability, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the provision of Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 will not be applicable. 10. It also requires to refer herein that when the matter was heard at length and when this Court had expressed its mind after closure of argument about having no merit in the memo of appeal on the basis of facts and circumstances and on due deliberation of the issues which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for adjournment which was refused finding it not proper after hearing the matter at length. 11. This Court on due deliberation of the factual aspect as discussed hereinabove, is of the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 12. In the result, the instant appeal fails and it is dismissed.