JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present L.P.A. is directed against the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the civil writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. In the amended writ petition, the appellant-petitioner has sought following relief:

“(i) To issue an appropriate orders directions including a writ preferably in the Nature of Mandamus commanding and directions upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of choukidar on compassionate ground whose father opted voluntary retirements and nominated in favour of his son.

(ii) To direct the respondents to appoint on compassionate ground in terms of circular as contained in memo no. 5444 dated 22.06.2018 of Department of the (Home) Police Bihar Patna.

(iii) To issue an appropriate orders, directions including a writ preferably in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision of the District Compassionate Committee held on 05.08.2019 headed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur whereby and whereunder claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(iv) To any other reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the appellant, while working as Chaukidar, made an application in terms of Clause 3 (Gha) of the Bihar Chaukidar Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (in short 2014, Rules) for voluntary retirement on 18.02.2015 to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur in order to appoint his son on compassionate ground, who was dependent upon him. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee headed by the District Magistrate in its meeting dated 05.08.2019 rejected the claim of compassionate appointment taking into the consideration the fact that the father of the appellant had applied after the date of retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner (appellant herein) preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. Hence, the present L.P.A.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the father of the appellant had made his application on 18.02.2015 well in advance in the light of 2014, Rules seeking voluntary retirement, though his date of retirement was 30.06.2015 and it was the authority which ought to have taken necessary steps to either accept or reject the said application before the date of retirement and for no fault of appellant’s father, appellant cannot be denied benefit of appointment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021. In the result C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021 to be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no interference in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is called for as the same has been passed after taking notice of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-authorities wherein a specific stand has been taken that the application of the father of the appellant for appointment under 2014, Rules was not received prior to his voluntary retirement and such stand has not been denied or disputed as no rejoinder or reply to the counter affidavit has been filed. Thus, the application was not filed within stipulated time as prescribed under 2014, Rules.

7. Having considered the material available on record and further considering the rival submission, in the present case, the short point for consideration is as to whether the father of the appellant having made his application for voluntary retirement with a request for appointing his son ought to have been allowed by the respondents in the light of the 2014, Rules.

8. The said application was made under the relevant provisions of the Notification/Memo No. 1/Cho-90-01/2014 Gri-A-1896/Patna dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure-F to the counte