Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar RamversusThe Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikash and Aawas Bibhag
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner is not eligible for a compassionate appointment and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Ram, sought a mandamus directing the government to appoint him under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme following the death of his mother, a municipal sweeper, in 2014. He argued that no decision had been taken on his application despite submitting the required family list. The respondents contended that the petitioner was ineligible because his father was a government employee at the time of the mother's death, as per the scheme's guidelines, and that the lapse of twelve years negated any immediate hardship. The court examined the eligibility criteria, the effect of the elapsed time, and the propriety of re‑filing the same relief after earlier petitions were withdrawn. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to a compassionate appointment and dismissed the writ, imposing a modest cost.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme when his father was in government service at the time of his mother's death.
- Whether the passage of twelve years since the death defeats the claim of immediate hardship justifying compassionate appointment.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable after the petitioner previously withdrew identical petitions.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner for repeatedly seeking the same relief.
Subjects
- Compassionate Appointment Scheme
- Writ of Mandamus
- Eligibility
- Government Service
- Municipal Employment
- Cost Order
- Repeated Litigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 17728 of 2023
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Ram S/o Raj Kumar Prasad, R/o- Village/ Mohalla- Domhari
Tola, Block Road, Post- Rajgir, P.S.- Rajgir, Dist.- Nalanda, PIN- 803116.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikash and Aawas Bibhag Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Special Secretary, Nagar Vikash And Aawas Bibhag, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Nagar Vikash And Aawas Bibhag, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Municipal Commissioner of Nalanda, State of Bihar
5. The Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
6. The Collector of Nalanda.
7. The Additional Collector (Establishment), Nalanda.
8. The Executive Officer of Nagar Panchyat Rajgir, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Ranjit Jha, Advocate
For the S t a t e : Mr Abbas Haider, SC VI
For Respondent No 8 : Mr Rajiv Ranjan Kr Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs :
“i For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of ‘Mandamus’
directing and commanding the concern
respondent to appoint the petitioner on suitable
post under Compassionate Appointment Scheme
as per guideline issued by the Government of
Bihar vide Annexure 14 of this writ petition on
Patna High Court CWJC No.17728 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
2/5
account of death of his mother Soniya Domin
when she was in srvice on the post of regular
Sweeper in Nagar Panchayat Rajgir (Nalanda)
under municipal corporation.
ii For further issuance of appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of
‘Mandamus’ directing/commanding the concern
respondent to give the liberty of appointment of
the petitioner on suitable post according to his
qualification.
iii For issuance of any other relief or
reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled
to.”
3 The brief facts of the case are that the mother of the
petitioner late Soniya Domin was appointed on the post of regular
Sweeper in Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir (Nalanda) on 23.10.1987,
where she continued to work till she died in harness on
01.07.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the list of family
members before the competent authority and it is the contention of
the petitioner that no decision has been taken on the same till date.
It further appears from paragraph 18 of the writ petition that prior
to the present writ petition, the petitioner had earlier filed two writ
petitions bearing CWJC No 10788 of 2020 and 20626 of 2021 for
the same reliefs. Both the writ petitions were heard by a
coordinate Bench of this Court and vide order dated 11.09.2023,
on the prayer made by Shri Ranjit Jha (who is the counsel in the
present case also), the writ petitions were permitted to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17728 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
3/5
withdrawn. The coordinate Bench, in paragraphs No 7 to 9,
considered the case on merit and in paragraph No 12, has held as
follows:
“12 In view of the fact that the
petitioner has chosen to withdraw both the writ
petitions, this Court refrains from imposing cost
upon him but caution Mr Ranjit Jha to be
vigilant in future and faced with these
situations, advise the clients properly.”
4 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondents No 1 to 3 wherein it has been stated that guidelines
have been issued to all the Municipal bodies for making
appointment on compassionate ground and with regard to the case
of the petitioner, a letter has been issued by the Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna whereby the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Rajgir was
directed to look into the matter and to file a counter affidavit in
this case. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent No 8 wherein it has been stated that the death of the
petitioner’s mother occurred on 01.07.2014. At that time, her
husband Raj Kumar Prasad was in Government service and he
retired on 15.10.2015, therefore, in such circumstances, the
petitioner was not eligible to get appointment on compassionate
ground under the Government Scheme in view of the departmental
guidelines issued in Clause 1 (v) of letter No 13293 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.17728 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
4/5
05.10.1991 wherein it has been provided that no benefit will be
provided to the dependent of a spouse, if both are in Government
service and out of them, one dies and another remains in
Government service. Further, it has been contended on behalf of
respondent No 8 that earlier, the petitioner had filed two writ
petitions, bearing CWJC No 10788 of 2020 and CWJC No 20226
of 2021 for the same and identical relief, but the same were
withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the materials available on record, I find that the mother of
the petitioner died on 01.07.2014 and at the relevant time, the
father of the petitioner was in Government service, therefore as per
the policy of the Government, he was not eligible for appointment
on compassionate ground. Further, the very object of giving
compassionate appointment to a dependent of the deceased
employee, who dies in harness, is to relieve unexpected immediate
hardship and distress caused to the family by the sudden demise of
the earning member of the family. In the present case, since the
death occurred in 2014 and it is almost 12 years, therefore, when
the petitioner has survived for such long years, there is no reason
to believe that he will not survive the hardship which has been
caused due to the death of his mother in future. In other words, if
Patna High Court CWJC No.17728 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
5/5
the contention is accepted, it is another mode of recruitment of
dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be
encouraged, de hors the recruitment Rules.
6 Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed
with a cost of Rs 5,000/- since the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition for the same relief for which he had earlier filed
CWJC No 10788 of 2020 and 20626 of 2021 and both the writ
petitions were withdrawn, however, on the merit also, the same
were considered and the coordinate Bench had cautioned the
petitioner that since he has chosen to withdraw the writ petition,
this Court refrains from imposing cost upon him, but even then he
filed the present writ petition for the same relief.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…