Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, CJ., NANI TAGIA, J.
Gautam Kumar, Son of Late Chandrama Rai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna and Ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.228 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10199 of 2018
Decided On : 25-08-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Adv. Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3
Compassionate appointment claims are denied if a sibling is gainfully employed, reflecting state policy and upheld by judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Bihar State Government Policy on Compassionate Appointment - Seeking appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of a family member in service - The eligibility is negated if another sibling is gainfully employed, regardless of living arrangements - The Full Bench decision in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. the State of Bihar outlines this principle clearly. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court must rely on established policies and prior judgments while deciding on compassionate appointments and cannot intervene unless there is a significant error or injustice. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was initiated by the son of a deceased Assistant Sub-Inspector who sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father's death in 2013. His application was initially supported by a committee but later denied when it was revealed that his brother was gainfully employed as a Railway Driver prior to the recommendation.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the brother's employment disqualified the appellant from receiving compassionate appointment as per the state policy, thus upholding the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The key issues were the appellant's eligibility for compassionate appointment in light of his brother's employment status and the Single Judge's adherence to existing legal precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are intended for those without sufficient support, hence if another sibling is employed, the applicant is not entitled to benefits, aligning with state policy and judicial precedents.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ.
The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X of Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 against judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10199 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant/original writ petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, learned AC to AAG -3.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner has mainly contended that the father of the appellant/original petitioner was serving as an Assistant Sub- Inspector in the district of Aurangabad and while he was on duty, he died on 20th May, 2013. It is further submitted that the appellant/original petitioner, son of the deceased employee, submitted an application for getting appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme of the State Government, on 09.12.2013. It has further been contended that the said application was kept pending by the respondent authorities and, ultimately, the District Compassionate Committee, Aurangabad recommended the name of the appellant/original petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground on 19.09.2014. Learned counsel referred the minutes of the meeting of the said committee, copy of which is placed on record at page -30 of the compilation.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner further submits that pursuant to the recommendation made by the concerned committee, the petitioner was asked to report to the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad and thereafter the appellant/original petitioner went to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. However, Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad informed the appellant/original petitioner that there is no vacancy under the fixed quota of appointment on compassionate ground and he was asked to appear at Police Centre, Aurangabad along with all the required documents for necessary physical test for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Sepoy. Learned counsel referred page-35 of the compilation. It has also been submitted that thereafter, his appointment was kept pending vide order dated 27.02.2017. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner submits that ultimately vide order dated 07.02.2018, the appellant/original writ petitioner was informed that he cannot be considered for his appointment on compassionate ground as his brother is already in Govt. service and employed as a Driver in Railways since 23.04.2014. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the concerned respondent authority on different grounds.
5. Learned Singe Judge vide impugned judgment dated 13.02.2024 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/original petitioner relying upon the decision of Full Bench in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick v. the State of Bihar reported in 2018(2) PLJR 951 (FB).
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner has assailed the said judgment mainly on the ground that on the date of application submitted by the appellant/ original petitioner, his brother was not in service and his brother was appointed as a Driver in Railways only on 23.04.2014. It is further submitted that even the income of the brother of the appellant/original petitioner is not sufficient to maintain the entire family. Learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner would further submit that his brother is residing separately and, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the order passed by the concerned respondent authority with a direction to respondent authorities to appoint appellant/original petitioner on compassionate ground. Thus, learned counsel urged that the impugned judgment be set aside and appropriate order be passed.
7.
