Patna High Court
Priya KumariversusIn The High Court Of Judicature At Patna Through Its Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna and
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The order rejecting the petitioner's compassionate appointment is set aside, and the respondents must consider her application under the scheme in force at the time of the employee's death.
Summary
The petitioner, Priya Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order dated 01.02.2016 that rejected her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, relying on a prior High Court direction. The petitioner argued that the matter is governed by the precedent set in Seraj Anwar v. State of Bihar, which dealt with the applicability of the scheme in force at the time of the employee's death. The Court examined the principles laid down in Indian Bank v. Promila and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, emphasizing that compassionate appointments are not a right and must be assessed under the scheme prevailing at the date of death, not under later amendments such as a 3% restriction. The Court held that the respondents erred in applying the post‑death scheme and set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment within three months, and the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with the Seraj Anwar judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim is liable to be quashed in view of the scheme applicable at the time of the employee's death.
- Whether a post‑death amendment (e.g., 3% restriction) can be applied to the petitioner's claim.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds under the prevailing scheme.
- Whether the writ petition can be decided by following the precedent set in Seraj Anwar v. State of Bihar.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- scheme applicability
- judicial review
- writ petition
- high court
- appointment committee
- family pension
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13924 of 2016
======================================================
Priya Kumari Daughter of Late Umesh Prasad Singh @ Umesh Singh
Resident of village and P.O. Dhobwal, P.S. Khaira, District - Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna Through Its Registrar General,
Patna High Court, Patna
2. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna
3. The Registrar, Administration , I/C, Patna High Court, Patna
4. The District and Sessions Judge Cum Chairman, Appointment Committee,
Civil Court, East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
“For issuing an appropriate
Writ/Writs for quashing the order dated
01.02.2016 contained in Memo No. 1225-
227/E issued by the Appointment
Committee, Civil Court, East Champaran,
Motihari headed by the District & Sessions
Judge, East Champaran, Motihari. So far it
relates to the petitioner by which the claim
of the petitioner to consider her case for
appointment on compassionate ground has
been rejected taking into consideration the
direction of Hon'ble Patna High Court vide
letter no. 371/ Admn. Misc. (IV-32/2009)
Patna High Court CWJC No.13924 of 2016 dt.16-02-2026
2/5
dated 04.01.2016.
The petitioner further prays for
a direction that after quashing of the
impugned order the appointment of the
petitioner be considered forthwith and
accordingly she should be granted all the
consequential benefits flowing there from.”
2. At the very outset, Learned counsel
for the petitioner contended that since this matter
is squarely covered under the order passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
25683 of 2019 (Seraj Anwar Versus The
State of Bihar & Ors.), this writ petition may
also be disposed of on the same terms and
conditions.
3. In Seraj Anwar (supra) it has been
held as follows:
“10. In the case of Indian Bank
(supra) relied on by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as follows :-
“3. There has been some
confusion as to the scheme applicable and,
thus, this Court directed [Indian Bank v.
Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 735] the scheme
prevalent, on the date of the death, to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.13924 of 2016 dt.16-02-2026
3/5
placed before this Court for consideration,
as the High Court [Promila v. Indian Bank,
2008 SCC OnLine P & H 2267] appears to
have dealt with a scheme which was of a
subsequent date. The need for this also
arose on account of the legal position
being settled by the judgment of this Court
in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar
[Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015)
7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] , qua
what would be the cut-off date for
application of such scheme.
4. It is trite to emphasise,
based on numerous judicial
pronouncements of this Court, that
compassionate appointment is not an
alternative to the normal course of
appointment, and that there is no inherent
right to seek compassionate appointment.
The objective is only to provide solace and
succour to the family in difficult times and,
thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time
when the employee passes away.
5. An aspect examined by this
judgment [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh
Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC
(L&S) 539] is as to whether a claim for
compassionate employment under a
scheme of a particular year could be
decided based on a subsequent scheme
that came into force much after the claim.
The answer to this has been emphatically
Patna High Court CWJC No.13924 of 2016 dt.16-02-2026
4/5
in the negative. It has also been observed
that the grant of family pension and
payment of terminal benefits cannot be
treated as a substitute for providing
employment assistance. The crucial aspect
is to turn to the scheme itself to consider
as to what are the provisions made in the
scheme for such compassionate
appointment.”
11. In view of the facts and
circumstances stated herein above, in the
opinion of the Court, the respondents have
erred in placing the restriction of 3% which
was introduced for the first time several
months after the death of the
employee/father of the petitioner. It is the
scheme prevalent on the death of the
employee which would be applicable.
12. In view of the facts and
circumstances stated herein above, the order
impugned dated 20.4.2018 passed by the
respondent no.5 is not sustainable and is
accordingly set aside.
13. The respondents are
directed to consider the application of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate
ground at the earliest preferably within a
period of two months from the date of
receipt/production/communication of a copy
of this order.
14. The writ application stands
allowed.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.13924 of 2016 dt.16-02-2026
5/5
4. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the records.
5. Having regard to the submissions
made by the parties, the present writ petition
stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
judgment passed in Seraj Anwar (supra).
6. The respondents are directed to
examine the case of the petitioner in accordance
with law and to take a reasoned decision in the
light of the observations and directions contained
in the judgment passed in Seraj Anwar (supra)
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall
stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…