Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a fundamental right and must adhere to statutory guidelines and time limits, with no inheritable claims.

JUDGMENT :

P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.

Appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2022 passed in CWJC No. 17804 of 2019.

2. Appellant's father who was a Daftary in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Purnia died in harness on 29.12.1991. As on the date of his father's death, he was minor and aged about ten years. It is learnt that he had filed an application for compassionate appointment as and when he attains major in the year, 1999. Thereafter, there was inaction on the part of the respondents and, resultantly, he was pursuing the matter and ultimately he has knocked the doors of this Court in filing CWJC No. 15697 of 2011 and it was disposed of on 14.11.2013 with certain directions. For non-compliance of the order dated 14.11.2013 passed in CWJC No. 15697 of 2011, the appellant was compelled to file contempt petition vide MJC No. 4448 of 2014 and it was disposed of on 22.02.2018 reserving liberty to the appellant to assail action of the respondents. Thereafter, he has filed CWJC No. 17804 of 2019 and it was disposed of on 26.08.2022 with certain observations which reads as under:-

"This Court would observe that petitioner cannot be permitted to file successive writ petitions, one after the other seeking the same relief, which has been granted in the earlier writ proceedings. If at all the authorities have not complied with the earlier direction of this Court, the petitioner’s remedy would lie in the enforcement of the order passed in the earlier proceedings, in which MJC No. 4448/2014 as per the records is pending. There is no material on record to show that any order has been passed by the authorities after the petitioner’s earlier writ proceedings, which may require any interference by this Court.

The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed."

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2022, he has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 525 of 2022.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no fault on the part of the appellant. He has been denied com- passionate appointment in the light of social scheme of the State Government in providing compassionate appointment. Therefore, learned Single Judge has committed error in making observation that appellant was filing litigation after litigation. It was fundamental right of the appellant as and when he is aggrieved by the orders or a decision, he has to invoke certain statutory remedy and it has been invoked while filing CWJC No. 17804 of 2019.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. Compassionate appointment is not a fundamental right and it is governed in accordance with the Rules or Executive Order of the State Government. No doubt, compassionate appointment is governed by social legislation or social scheme of the State Government which was in vogue as on 29.12.1991, the date on which appellant's father died assuming that there is five years limitation period in the year 1991, that has lapsed in the year 1996 whereas appellant has filed application for compassionate appointment in the year 1999. Further, it is to be noted that appellant family survived in hardship from 1991 to 1999, the date on which application for compassionate appointment has been made. Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that there is no vested right in respect of seeking compassionate appointment. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025 arising out