Patna High Court

Awadesh ParwatversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 30 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The Court set aside the DLSC’s decisions and directed fresh consideration of the petitioner's compassionate appointment, applying the law as at the date of the father's death rather than the 2016 order.

Summary

The petitioner, son of a deceased PDS dealer, applied for a compassionate appointment as a PDS dealer. Although his application was recommended by the Block Supply Officer and the Sub‑Divisional Officer, the District Level Selection Committee (DLSC) rejected it, citing the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which requires a matriculation qualification. The petitioner argued that the eligibility criteria in force at the time of his father's death (2015) should apply, not the later 2016 order. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in LPA No. 299 of 2020 and Supreme Court precedents holding that compassionate appointments must be decided based on the scheme prevailing at the date of death. It held that the 2016 order cannot be applied retrospectively and set aside the DLSC’s decisions, directing the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh within four weeks. The writ petition was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, requiring a matriculation qualification can be applied retrospectively to a compassionate appointment filed before its enactment.
Whether the DLSC's rejection of the petitioner's application violates Supreme Court jurisprudence on compassionate appointments.
Whether a mandamus can be issued directing issuance of a PDS licence on compassionate grounds.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

Subjects

compassionate appointment
PDS dealer
matriculation requirement
retrospective application of law
mandamus
District Level Selection Committee
writ petition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12186 of 2025
======================================================
Awadesh Parwat Son of Jagarnath Parwat, Resident of Village - Dangi
Mathiya, P.S. - Goriakothi, District - Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
3. The District Supply Officer, Siwan
4. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Hajipur, Siwan.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Goriakothi, Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (03)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

7 30-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“A. A Mandamus Commanding the District
Level Selection Committee Siwan for issuance &
allotting of a P.D.S. license in the name of the petitioner
immediately under compassionate ground which has
already been recommended by the S.D.O. Mahrajganj by
vide Memo No 03 dated 06.01.2020 contained therein
Annexure P/1(Series) & the same -has also been
recommended by the Block Supply Officer Goraikothi by
vide Memo No. 74 dated 06.08.2019 contained therein
Annexure -P/6(Series) but it is still pending before the
selection committee, siwan for the consideration for
which the petitioner is eligible & bonafide under the
Bihar Targeted Public Distribution Control (Order)
2016.
B. A mandamus commanding the S.D.O,
Mahrajganj further to issue a P.D.S license in the name
of petitioner under the compassionate ground because
the petitioner is matching with all the eligibility criteria
Patna High Court CWJC No.12186 of 2025(7) dt.30-06-2026
2/8

under which he is the only who is fully & purely entitled
to obtained that license of P.D.S Shop.
C. Any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner may be found entitled in the fact and
circumstances of the present case may be granted to
him.”
Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2026.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the above

Interlocutory Application, the same is allowed.

4. The following relief(s) has been added by

allowing I.A. No. 01 of 2026:-

“For quashing & setting aside the
unspecified decision & impugned order of the District
Level Selection Committee, Siwan containing Memo. No.
385 Annexure R/1 dated 31.05.2017 & containing Memo.
No. 9 Annexure R/2 dated 09.01.2020 whereby and
where under the District Level Selection Committee
siwan has repudiated legitimate claim of the petitioner
on the contrary of the implicit provisions contained
thereto without considering the facts, merit & law laid
down upon it without application of mind unilaterally &
prejudicially & directing the District Level Selection
Committee, Siwan as well as S.D.O, Mahrajganj to issue
a P.D.S license in the name of petitioner under the
compassionate ground because the petitioner is matching
all the eligibility criteria under which he is the only who
is fully & purely entitled to obtained that license of P.D.S
Shop & to resume the supply of food grains by allotting
the monthly allotment of food grains as same as before.”

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the

petitioner was appointed as PDS dealer in the year 1987 and he

died on 11.12.2015. That the petitioner thereafter has filed an

application seeking appointment as PDS dealer on

compassionate grounds. The application of the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.12186 of 2025(7) dt.30-06-2026
3/8

been recommended by the Block Supply Officer, Goriakothi,

Siwan vide Memo No. 74. Thereafter, basing on the

recommendation made by the Block Supply Officer, the SDO

has also recommended the name of the petitioner to be

appointed as PDS dealer on compassionate grounds to the

District Level Selection Committee (DLSC) vide Memo No. 03/

2020. However, till date the authorities are not taking any action

on the said recommendation and the petitioner is being made to

run from pillar to post. Learned counsel submits that the DLSC

has kept the application made by the petitioner pending on the

ground that the petitioner is not a matriculate pass as per the

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,

2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Control’ order) and filed the

2nd application after two years. Learned counsel submits that the

impugned decision of the DLSC is contrary to the Judgment of

this Hon’ble High Court passed in LPA No. 299 of 2020 dated

15.03.2024 and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of the law as

it stood on the date of the death of the incumbent should be

taken into consideration while dealing with the said application

made for compassionate appointment and not the provisions of

the Control order, 2016. Learned counsel submits that there is
Patna High Court CWJC No.12186 of 2025(7) dt.30-06-2026
4/8

no requirement that an applicant to PDS dealer should be a

matriculate pass prior to the coming into force of the Control

order, 2016. Learned counsel, therefore, prays this Hon’ble

Court to allow the present writ petition setting aside the decision

dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure-R/1) & 09.01.2020 (Annexure-

R/2) and direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of

the petitioner afresh duly taking into consideration the law laid

down by this Hon’ble Court as well the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the

very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned

counsel has stated that the application of the petitioner has to be

considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the

Control order, 2016 which mandates that the applicant to the

PDS shops should be a matriculate pass besides other criteria.

Learned counsel submits that the law which is prevalent as on

the date of considering the application will be taken into

consideration and not the date of death of the PDS dealer.

Learned counsel has also submitted that the State of Bihar has

issued certain instructions vide Memo No. 4842 dated

25.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) wherein it has been clearly

mandated that any application made after coming into force of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12186 of 2025(7) dt.30-06-2026
5/8

the Control order, 2016 shall be dealt with in accordance with

the said provisions only. Learned counsel, therefore, prays this

Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No.

299 of 2020 dated 15.03.2024 under similar circumstances, has

held as under:-

“11. It is necessary to quote
the relevant judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal
No. 7752 of 2021 arising out of Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 1564 of 2021
(The Secretary To Govt. Department of
Education (Primary) & Ors. vs.
Bheemesh @ Bheemappa. In the said
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that applicability of modified
scheme with respect to appointment on
compassionate grounds would be based
on a fixed criteria, like date of death,
rather than indeterminate factor, like
date of consideration of claim.
12. On the said subject matter
of compassionate appointment, in the
case of State of M.P. v. Ashish Awasthi
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 it has been
held at para 5 that as per the settled
proposition of law laid down by this
Court for appointment on
compassionate ground, the policy
prevalent at the time of death of the
deceased employee only is required to be
considered and not the subsequent
policy. In para 6 of the said judgment,
while discussing the case of Indian Bank
Patna High Court CWJC No.12186 of 2025(7) dt.30-06-2026
6/8

v. Promila reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729
it is observed and held that claim for
compassionate appointment must be
decided only on the basis of relevant
scheme prevalent on date of demise of
the employee and subsequent scheme
cannot be looked into. Similar view has
been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496.”

8. Admittedly in the present case also the father of the

petitioner died on 11.12.2015 and thereafter the petitioner had

made an application for compassionate appointment on

08.09.2018. However, the authority has not passed any order on

the ground that the petitioner is not a matriculate pass as per the

provisions of the Control order, 2016. However, it is to be noted

that prior to coming into force of the Control Order, 2016 there

was no minimum education qualification prescribed for

appointment of any PDS dealer. Further, the application of the

petitioner was recommended for appointment on 06.08.2019 by

the Block Supply Officer, Goriakothi, Siwan and also the SDO

concerned. Further, the contention that the petitioner’s second

application is made after two years is also not correct and

legally tenable as no orders are passed on the first application as

it is well within time and the same shall only be taken into

consideration.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12186 of 2025(7) dt.30-06-2026
7/8

9. Having regard to the law laid down by this

Hon’ble Court in the above mentioned case, the non-

consideration of the application solely on the ground that the

Control order, 2016 does not permit an applicant who is not a

matriculate pass to be appointed is without any legal basis. The

Control order, 2016 has to be applied prospectively and not

retrospectively, the date of death of the father of the petitioner

has to be necessarily taken into consideration for considering his

case and not coming into force of the Control order, 2016.

10. Having regard to the same, the impugned

decision dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure-R/1) & 09.01.2020

(Annexure-R/2) are both set aside. The matter is remanded back

and the respondent-authorities are directed to reconsider the

application of the petitioner for appointing as a PDS dealer

afresh duly taking into consideration the observations of this

Hon’ble Court and also the recommendations made by the

Block Supply Officer and the SDO concerned at the earliest

preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

11. With the above directions, the present Writ

Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.

12. All pending I.As., if any, are deemed to have
Patna High Court CWJC No.12186 of 2025(7) dt.30-06-2026
8/8

been disposed of.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Kumar Gaurav