The court upheld the principle that applications for compassionate appointments must adhere to statutory time limits, reinforcing the restrictive nature of compassionate employment provisions.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

4 23.12.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the part of the order dated 1.8.2012 of the District Compassionate Committee, Nalanda, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

3. The facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner no. 1 who was working as an Ex-Warden of Sub-Jail, Hilsa, died in harness on 11.7.2002. The petitioner no.1 was a minor aged about 13 years, 5 months and 5 days on the date of death of his father.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that an application for appointment on compassionate ground was made in the year 2004 with all relevant documents. The same was followed by a representation in the year 2005 and on the petitioner no. 1 having passed his Madhyama in the year 2007, yet another application on 5.7.2007. It is further submitted that on the respondents asking the petitioner, a fresh application was filed in the year 2011 which was considered and rejected by the respondents on the ground of delay

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 having filed his application in the year 2004 itself, the application should not have been rejected on the ground of delay. It is further submitted that soon after attaining majority and having passed Madhyama examination in the year 2007, the petitioner no.1 had filed a representation on 5.7.2007 also. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners on the judgment in the case of Ravi Ranjan Versus State of Bihar ;

2012(2) PLJR 56

6. No one appears for the respondents.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

8. The facts not in dispute are that the father of the petitioner no. 1 having died in the harness on 11.7.2002 while working as Ex-Warden of Sub-Jail Hilsa, the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. Accepting the application of the petitioners that application was filed in the year 2004, the petitioner no.1 was a minor aged about 15 years 5 months on the date of his application and as such could not be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. As per the petitioners case, his subsequent application filed in the year 2011 was rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee by the order impugned on the ground of the same being time barred in view of Clause 6 of the Resolution dated 27.4.1995 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department.

10. A perusal of the said resolution brought on record by the respondents in their counter affidavit would show that Clause 6 thereof clearly provides that application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be made by the dependent of the deceased employee within five years of the death. The death of the father of the petitioner no. 1 having taken place on 11.7.2002, the application had to be made on or before 11.7.2007.

11. The object of compassionate appointment was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana ; (1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein it held as follows:

“2. ……………….... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to