Patna High Court
Ram Pragash RaiversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as it is barred by delay and lacks merit.
Summary
The petitioner, elder son of a deceased Eastern Railway employee, filed a writ petition in 2017 seeking a mandamus directing the railway authorities to issue a compassionate appointment letter in his favour, alleging that his younger brother (respondent No.6) had been improperly appointed in 2003. The petitioner claimed he was better qualified and that the appointment was fraudulent. The Union of India opposed, arguing the petition was barred by delay and latches, and that the petitioner’s mother had later affirmed support for the brother’s appointment. The court noted that the death occurred in 1997, the appointment in 2003, and the challenge only arose in 2017, constituting an unexplained delay. Finding no merit and deeming the petition barred by delay, the court dismissed the writ application.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and latches.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compassionate appointment over the brother already appointed.
- Whether the appointment of respondent No.6 was illegal or fraudulent.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- railway service
- writ of mandamus
- delay
- laches
- family dispute
- appointment fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16513 of 2017
======================================================
Ram Pragash Rai Son of late Lakshman Rai resident of Village - Harpurba,
Ward no. 8, P.S. - Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Central Railway,
Hajipur, Bihar.
2. The Divisional Rail Manager, Sonpur, Bihar.
3. The Divisional Rail Manager (Karmic) Sonpur, Bihar.
4. The Assistant Railway Engineer, Barauni Section, Bihar.
5. The Head Assistant Railway Engineer, Barauni Carriage, Barauni Junction
of Barauni Bihar.
6. Shankar Rai Son of late Lakshman Rai resident of Village - Harpurba, Ward
no. 8, P.S. - Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel
Ms. Surbhi Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent no.6 : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the
respondent no. 6.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief:
“That by this Writ
application is being filed by the
petitioner seeks indulgence of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.16513 of 2017 dt.13-01-2026
2/5
Hon'ble court for issuance of writ in
nature of mandamus and directing and
commanding the respondent
authorities for issuance of the
compassionate appointment letter in
favour of petitioner, earlier
appointment proceeding was initiated
before Govt. Complaint Redressal
Centre, Eastern Railway, Sonpur and
thus complaint Registered no.
SADHI/1/niyukti/06627.8.01 and
further prayed that for direction of the
respondents authorities to produced
the appointment letter and after
hearing the case Your Lordships may
pleased to cancel the illegal
appointment of Res. No. 5 Whereby
and whereunder the respondent no. 5
who has very clever and collusion of
the concern authorities have
fraudently managed the office concern
for illegal appointment of as
designated post of IV grade employee.
And any other relief/reliefs for which
the petitioner is found to be entitled in
the eye of law.”
3. The father of the petitioner and respondent no. 6
namely Lakshman Rai who was working in the Eastern
Railways at Sonpur died in harness on 6.1.1997. Pursuant to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16513 of 2017 dt.13-01-2026
3/5
same, applications were filed by the petitioner as also the
respondent no. 6 for appointment on compassionate ground.
4. It transpires that by order dated 21.2.2003, the
respondent no. 6 was appointed on compassionate ground.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the petitioner who happens to be the eldest
son of the deceased employee was better qualified for
appointment. Further in reference to the affidavit sworn by his
mother and brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ
application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
application of the petitioner was recommended by his mother on
affidavit for his appointment. However, the petitioner was
surprised that subsequently in the year 2003, the respondent no.
6 came to be appointed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that though the appointment took place in February 2003, not
having any knowledge about the appointment, he could file the
writ application only in the year 2017. As such, it is prayed that
the appointment of respondent no. 6 (wrongly mentioned as
respondent no. 5 in paragraph no. 1) be cancelled and the
petitioner be appointed in his place.
7. The application is opposed by learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.16513 of 2017 dt.13-01-2026
4/5
appearing for the Union of India as also the respondent no. 6.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India
submits that the writ application is fit to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and latches. It is further submitted in reference
to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 to 5 as also the affidavit of the mother of the
petitioner and respondent no. 6 dated 3.10.2020 i.e. after filing
of the present writ application, which is to the effect that the
mother of the petitioner was in favour of the younger son i.e.
respondent no. 6 being appointed on compassionate ground. It is
submitted that the very filing of the affidavit by the mother
would show that the mother has no objection to the appointment
of respondent no. 6, the appointment having taken place 14
years before filing of the writ application. Learned counsel
submits that there is no merit in the writ application and the
same be dismissed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the contents of the petition, it transpires that the
matter relates to compassionate appointment in place of the
deceased employee who was working in the Easters Railways at
Sonpur. The death having taken place in the year 1997, the
appointment came to be made in the year 2003 and challenge to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16513 of 2017 dt.13-01-2026
5/5
the same has been made in the year 2017.
10. Besides the case being one of family dispute
between two brothers i.e. the petitioner and respondent no. 6,
there has been no complaint by the mother that the family was
not looked after by the son i.e. the respondent no. 6 who got the
appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2003.
11. The writ application is also fit to be rejected on
the ground of unexplained delay and latches.
12. The Court finds no merit in the instant
application and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.1.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…