Patna High Court
Ranjit KumarversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to show a reasonable cause for the delay and there is no illegality in the department’s refusal to appoint him on compassionate ground.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father, a Central Water Commission employee who died in service on 15 January 2013. He had applied for such appointment on 12 February 2013, but the department replied on 14 December 2017 that no vacancy existed because only one seat (5% of vacancies) was allotted for compassionate appointments, already filled by another candidate. After receiving this refusal, the petitioner made several representations but obtained no positive response, and only filed the writ petition in December 2023, more than ten years after the death and six years after the department’s refusal. The Court examined the Supreme Court precedents that compassionate appointments are meant to tide over immediate family crises and that filing representations does not extend the limitation period. Finding no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay and no error in the department’s policy, the Court dismissed the petition. The decision underscores the requirement of timely filing of writ applications in compassionate appointment matters.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground despite the delay of over ten years since the death of his father.
- Whether the department's policy limiting compassionate appointments to 5% of vacancies is valid and can be relied upon to reject the petition.
- Whether filing representations before the department extends the limitation period for approaching the court.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- public service recruitment
- limitation period
- administrative discretion
- delay in filing
- writ jurisdiction
- Central Water Commission
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18505 of 2023
======================================================
Ranjit Kumar Son of Late Ashok Sah @Ashok Kumar Sah, Resident of
Village Bhelwa, P.O. Sondip, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Principal Secretary, Central Water
Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi.
3. The Assistant Secretary, Establishment XII, Central Water Commission,
New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Director, Teesta and Bhagirathi- Damodar Basin Organization,
Teesta Campus, GE-2, Sec.III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106.
5. The Chief Engineer, (HRM) Central Water Commission, Seva Bhawan, R.K.
Puram New Delhi
6. The Superintending Engineer, Investigation Campus, Central Water
Commission, Gangtok.
7. The Executive Engineer, Sikkim Investigation Zone, Central Water
Commission, Gangtok.
8. The Departmental Screening Committee/ Compassionate Committee
constituted Under Department of Central Water Commission, Teesta Basin
Organization, Sevak Road, 2 Mill, Siliguri 734001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one
appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate ground in the place of his father who died in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18505 of 2023 dt.31-03-2026
2/5
harness on 15.1.2013 while working in the Central Water
Commission at Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim.
3. The petitioner filed an application for
appointment on compassionate ground on 12.2.2013. As and
when directed, the petitioner submitted all the documents
required by the respondents. Not having received a letter of
appointment nor any communication, the petitioner got a legal
notice sent though his lawyer on 5.12.2017 to which a reply
was received on 14.12.2017 stating therein that so far as
appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, as
appointment on compassionate ground could be made only on
5% of the seats which came to one seat, one Vimal Sharma
having been appointment on compassionate ground, there was
no more vacancies for appointment of the petitioner. The
communication further stated that as and when further
appointments are made, the petitioner would be accordingly
informed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that he also filed several representations including the last on
25.5.2023 but did not receive any positive reply from the
department except for oral assurances. As such the instant writ
application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18505 of 2023 dt.31-03-2026
3/5
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and having perused the contents of the petition, it transpires
that the father of the petitioner who was employed in the
Central Water Commission at Tadong, Gangtok in the State of
Sikkim, having died in harness on 15.1.2013, as per the case
of the petitioner, he filed an application for appointment on
compassionate ground on 12.2.2013.
6. The application of the petitioner was considered
by the respondents, who by their letter dated 14.12.2017
written by the Superintending Engineer communicated their
inability to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground for
the reason that in view of the limit of appointment on
compassionate ground on 5% of the vacant seats, appointment
could only be made on one seat on which one Vimal Sharma
had been appointed.
7. It may be observed here that the inability of the
respondent-Central Water Commission, Government of India
having been communicated to the petitioner through his
counsel on 14.12.2017, a copy of which is Annexure- 5 to the
writ application, the petitioner sat over the matter and came to
file the instant writ application only in the year 2023. This was
more than 10 years after the death of the employee and more
Patna High Court CWJC No.18505 of 2023 dt.31-03-2026
4/5
than 6 years after the inability communicated by the
respondents in appointing the petitioner on compassionate
ground in view of the policy decision of the respondent
limiting the seats to 5 % of the vacancies.
8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana &
Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 138 that the whole object of granting
compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over
the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such
family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; (2022) 15 SCC
536 has held that filing of representation does not extend the
period of limitation. A person has to approach the Court
within a reasonable time.
10. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the death
of the employee/father of the petitioner having taken place on
15.1.2013, the application of the petitioner having been
rejected on 14.12.2017 and the petitioner having approached
this Court in December, 2023, in the opinion of the Court, the
petitioner has not made out any good reason explaining the
delay in filing the instant writ application. Even otherwise, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18505 of 2023 dt.31-03-2026
5/5
Court finds no error/ illegality in the reasons assigned by the
respondents in their order as contained in letter dated
14.12.2017 (Annexure-5).
11. The Court finds no merit in the instant
application and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 01.04.2026.
Transmission Date
Checking your session…