Alok Kumar Pandey, J.—The present LPA is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed in CWJC No. 7594 of 2017 whereby and whereunder civil writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. In civil writ jurisdiction, the appellant has sought following relief(s):—

(i) An appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly in the nature of quashing of the order contained in memo no. 339 dated 02.08.2016 passed by the District Magistratecum- Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, West Champaran, Bettiah, the respondent no. 6, rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner in lieu of petitioner's father death in harness on 26.01.1992.

(ii) An appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on any suitable post on compassionate ground with all consequential benefits.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant's father, namely, Ramu Bahadur died in harness on 26.01.1992 while working on the permanent post of Canal Labour (Nahar Majdoor) and whereafter the appellant made an application on 24.12.1995 before the respondent no. 5 for grant of compassionate appointment, however, the claim of the appellant was not considered.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant, being the son of deceased employee has passed 8th Standard, filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground in prescribed form with all relevant documents on 24.12.1995. It has further submitted that appellant tried his best to draw the attention of respondent authority to appoint him on compassionate ground and in the light of consistent drawing attention of respondent authority, respondent no. 5 issued a letter vide memo no. 710 dated 13.06.2015 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) to respondent no. 4 seeking clarification in the light of letter no. 1866 dated 04.02.2015 issued by the Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. It has further been submitted that claim of appellant for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the respondent authority on the ground that same cannot be considered after lapse of 24 years from the date of death of government employee and it was mentioned that there was no evidence for filing the application for appointment on compassionate ground and it was also not clear that what is the time limit for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground and lastly, the claim of appellant for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected which was communicated to the appellant vide memo no. 339 dated 02.08.2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). It was further submitted that claim of the appellant has wrongly been rejected on the ground that there is no clear proof of the fact that appellant had submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground within prescribed time, inasmuch as the letter of Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division dated 13.06.2015 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) would show that the appellant filed application on 24.12.1995. It was further submitted that claim of appellant has been rejected by mentioning another ground that there is no basis for considering the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of 24 years from the date of death of government employee. The counsel of the appellant vehemently submitted on the said score that neither the respondent authority nor the learned Single Judge has considered that whether there was laches on the part of respondent authority who has blocked the process of appointment on compassionate ground for so many years as same is evident that file is being sent for one purpose or another purpose with reason best known to the respondent authority and thereby the process of appointment has been delayed and appellant is being deprived for which he has sought the relief. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted th