Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar SrivastavaversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the claim for compassionate appointment is time‑barred and barred by laches.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, sought a compassionate appointment after his father, a government employee, died in harness in 1988. He filed applications in 1990 and 1992, which were rejected on grounds of minority and limitation, respectively, and he only learned of these rejections in 2013 via an RTI request. The petitioner argued the applications were timely and sought a quashing of the Committee's decisions and a fresh appointment. The State contended the applications were time‑barred and the petitioner’s claim was hopelessly delayed. Relying on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate relief and cannot be claimed after a reasonable period, the Court held that the petition was barred by limitation and laches. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is barred by limitation and laches.
- Whether a compassionate appointment can be granted after a long lapse of time.
- Whether the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment under constitutional principles of equality.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- limitation
- laches
- right to information
- dependent of deceased employee
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- Article 14
- Article 16
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20429 of 2013
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Son Of Late Surendra Kumar Srivastava Resident
Of Village- Koithwali, Police Station- Mairwan In The District Of Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Co-operative Department,
Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gopalganj Through
Its Chairman
4. The District Magistrate Co-Operative Officer, Gopalganj
5. The District Co-Operative Officer, Gopalganj
6. The Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative, Gopalganj
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Kr. Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-04-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“(i) For quashing the decision dated
12.8.1999 of District Compassionate Appointment
Committee, Gopalganj, only to extend whereby
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected on limitation ground
only.
(ii) Also for directing the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for
Compassionate Appointment, as his father namely
Surendra Kumar Srivastava died in harness on
21.11.1988, while posted as Senior Co-operative
Patna High Court CWJC No.20429 of 2013 dt.07-04-2026
2/7
Extension Officer in the office of Assistant
Registrar, Gopalganj.”
(3) The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ
petition, are that the father of the petitioner died in harness on
21.11.1988, while he was posted as Senior Co-operative Extension
Officer in the office of Assistant Registrar, Gopalganj. After death
of his father, the petitioner submitted an application for his
appointment on compassionate ground on 15.01.1990. It is the
case of the petitioner that no decision was communicated to the
petitioner, pursuant to his application dated 15.01.1990, although
he applied within the period of five years. When no
communication was being provided to the petitioner with regard to
his application, he filed an application under the Right to
Information Act, with regard to the action taken on his application
by the Compassionate Appointment Committee/competent
authority, then he was communicated vide Letter No.1094, dated
03.08.2013 that the claim for compassionate appointment of the
petitioner was rejected on 11.12.1995 on the ground of he being
minor on the date of application and his second application, which
the petitioner is said to have filed on 25.02.1992 was rejected on
11.11.1996 on the ground that it was beyond the limitation period.
(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
neither the minutes of the meeting dated 11.12.1995 or 11.11.1996
of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gopalganj
Patna High Court CWJC No.20429 of 2013 dt.07-04-2026
3/7
was communicated to the petitioner nor any communication in this
regard was made to the petitioner, then he approached for
providing the copy of the minutes of the meeting of District
Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gopalganj. Finally, the
petitioner was provided with a minutes of the meeting dated
12.08.1999 of the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee, Gopalganj. It was further contended that none of the
orders were ever provided to the petitioner a nd, therefore, when
he came to know about the decisions dated 11.12.1995, 11.11.1996
and 12.08.1999, in the year 2013, then he approached this Court
by filing the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that his application for compassionate
appointment was well within time and although he was a minor at
the time of death of his father, but later on when he became major
he again submitted an application before the competent authority
but the same was rejected on erroneous ground, therefore,
direction be issued to the respondent authorities to appoint the
petitioner on compassionate ground.
(5) Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-
State submits that at the time of death of the late father of the
petitioner, he was a minor, therefore, his application was rejected
by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee,
Gopalganj on 11.12.1995. He again submitted an application for
Patna High Court CWJC No.20429 of 2013 dt.07-04-2026
4/7
appointment on compassionate ground, after attaining the age of
majority, but the said application was rejected by the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee on 03.08.1999 on the
ground that since his earlier application has been rejected,
therefore, the second application is again rejected. Again the
matter with regard to appointment of the petitioner on
compassionate ground was submitted/placed before the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gopalganj in its meeting
dated 01.06.2000, but the representation of the petitioner was
rejected, since it was found that the matter is time barred and the
said order was also communicated to the petitioner. The learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State further
submits that the application of the petitioner for being appointed
on compassionate ground is hopelessly time barred and is fit to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(6) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the documents available on record, it is an
admitted fact that the father of the petitioner died in harness on
21.11.1988 and at the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor,
even then he submitted his application for being appointed on
compassionate ground which was rejected by the authorities
concerned. After attaining the age of majority, he again submitted
an application for being appointed on compassionate ground, but
Patna High Court CWJC No.20429 of 2013 dt.07-04-2026
5/7
the same was also rejected on the ground that his earlier
application has already been rejected. Now, after almost 38 years
of the death of the father of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner
for being appointed on compassionate ground is fit to be rejected
in view of different pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Jagdish Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another reported in
(1996) 1 SCC 301, in paragraph no.3 has held that “the very
object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee
who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship
and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning
member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971,
in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said
that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long
thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it
amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a
deceased government servant which cannot be encouraged, de
hors the recruitment rules.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana and Others
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, in paragraph no.6 has held as
follows:-
“6. For these very reasons, the
compassionate employment cannot be granted after
Patna High Court CWJC No.20429 of 2013 dt.07-04-2026
6/7
a lapse of a reasonable period which must be
specified in the rules. The consideration for such
employment is not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time in future. The object being to
enable the family to get over the financial crisis
which it faces at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot
be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time
and after the crisis is over””
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Local Administration Department and Another versus M.
Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu reported in (2011) 13 SCC 42, in
paragraph no.11 has held as follows:-
“11. It has been said a number of times
earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under
the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case
of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible
dependants is given a job with the sole objective to
provide immediate succour to the family which may
suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the
death of the breadwinner. An appointment made
many years after the death of the employee or
without due consideration of the financial resources
available to his/her dependants and the financial
deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of
his death, simply because the claimant happened to
be one of the dependants of the deceased employee
would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal.
In dealing with cases of compassionate
appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital
aspect in mind.”
9. Even this Court, based on the consideration of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20429 of 2013 dt.07-04-2026
7/7
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagdish Prasad
(supra), vide its judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 5750 of 2022 (Janki Ballabh Versus the State of Bihar and
Ors.) and judgment dated 30.03.2026, passed in C.W.J.C. No.4723
of 2026 (Aashish Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.), has
proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground of
delay and laches.
10. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
11. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.