ORDER :

(Ananda Sen, J.)

1. The writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No.2541 of 2021, by filing this intra court appeal, challenges the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.2002 of 2013, which was dismissed. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner had approached the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.104 of 2015. This Court had remanded the matter to the authority concerned to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh, but the authority again dismissed the claim of the petitioner, taking a different ground, which is absolutely bad. As per him, the Committee, initially, on 14.09.2012, had rejected the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner-appellant on the ground of delay as the application of the petitioner was filed on 05.01.2012, i.e., much after the limitation period, which is five years. The aforesaid finding is incorrect as on 04.01.1999, itself, an application was filed by the mother of this petitioner, claiming for compassionate appointment and since the said application was not considered, the matter was remanded by this Court in the earlier L.P.A. No.104 of 2015. Pursuant to such remand, again on 23.11.2006, the authority considered the case of the petitioner, but rejected the same on a different ground, i.e., the ground of minority of this petitioner at the time of death of the employee. As per the counsel for the petitioner-appellant, a new ground has been taken in the fresh rejection order, which is impermissible, keeping in view that the Division Bench of this Court had directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the point of delay. As per him, if the period is primarily calculated, it would be clear that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was filed within five years from the date of death of father of this petitioner. He lastly contends that learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the aforesaid fact, which needs reconsideration and the petitioner needs to be appointed. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant admits that at the time of death of his father, petitioner was 9 years few months old, i.e., had not even completed 10 years.

3. The facts are admitted in this case. Father of this petitioner, late Shishir Kumar Das was a teacher under the respondents, who died in harness on 13.02.1994. Mother of this petitioner had filed an application, for grant of compassionate appointment to this petitioner, on 04.01.1999, wherein she mentioned that the age of this petitioner as 14 years and after four years he will attain majority, thus, he should be appointed once he attains majority. The aforesaid application dated 04.01.1999, filed by the mother of the petitioner was not considered, rather the application filed by this petitioner on 05.01.2012, i.e., after attaining majority, was considered and it was rejected by the Committee on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner on 05.01.2012, was after 5 (five) years from the date of death of his father. The writ petitioner-appellant challenged the aforesaid application in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2002 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 10.03.2014. The writ petitioner-appellant had challenged the aforesaid order in L.P.A. No.104 of 2015, taking a ground that the respondents should have considered the application filed by the mother, which was well within 5 (five) years from the date of death of father. The Division Bench allowed the said Letters Patent Appeal holding that the authorities did not consider the application filed by the mother of the petitioner, which was filed on 05.01.1999, thus, the same should be considered. The matter was remanded by the Division Bench to the authorities concerned for reco