Patna High Court
Vidhata KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the application was filed after the prescribed period, making it time‑barred, and therefore the Collector’s order was valid.
Summary
The petitioner sought a compassionate appointment as a Gramin Police Chaukidar in place of his father, who retired on 30‑June‑2020, invoking a 2014 Home Police Department notification that requires such applications to be filed a month before superannuation. The Collector rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that it was filed on 10‑August‑2020, more than a month after the father’s retirement, thus violating the prescribed time‑limit. The respondents argued that the delay rendered the application time‑barred and that there was no merit in the writ. The Court examined the notification and found that the filing was indeed untimely, confirming the Collector’s decision. Consequently, the Court held there was no illegality in the order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the application for compassionate appointment filed after the prescribed one‑month period before superannuation is time‑barred under the 5‑March‑2014 notification.
- Whether the Collector’s order rejecting the application is legally valid.
- Whether the writ petition seeking quash of the order should be dismissed.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- time-barred application
- Gramin Police Chaukidar
- Home Department notification
- administrative order
- writ jurisdiction
- civil writ
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.26 of 2025
======================================================
Vidhata Kumar Son of Late Satya Narayan Paswan, Resident of Village-
Madhu Chhapra, Ward No. 11, P.O. Post- Jamua, P.S. and Anchal- Bairgania,
District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Cum Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Cum Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, the Joint Secretary Department
of Home, (Police) Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Under Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Collector Cum Zila Padadhikari, Sitamarhi.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi.
8. The Deputy Collector, (Establishment) Collecteriate, Sitamarhi.
9. The Anchal Adhikari, Bairgania, District- Sitamarhi.
10. The Officer-in-charge, (SHO), Bairgania, P.S. District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta, Advocate
Mr. Chunnu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rameshur Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, SC- 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief (s) :-
“1. (A) To quash the order dated 20-08-2024
(Annexure-3) passed by the collector, Sitamarhi, in
Miscellaneous Case no. 4/2024 filed by the
petitioner in the light of the order dated 22-11-
2023 (Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C. No.6649/2023
thereunder prayer for compassionate appointment
as Chaukidar (Gramin Police) has been rejected
Patna High Court CWJC No.26 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
as time barred.
(B) To make compassionate appointment to the
petitioner as Chaukidar, (Gramine Police) in
place of Ex. Chaukidar, (gramin Police) the father
of the petitioner who has been taken Voluntary
retirement from the post of Chaukidar (ramin
Police) on 30.06.2020.
(C) To grant any other relief / reliefs petitioner is
found to be entitled in the facts of circumstances of
the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that his father having
been appointed as a Chaukidar by the competent authority on
1.1.1990, he voluntarily retired on 30.6.2020. Inspite of the
petitioner’s father having filed an application in terms of the
notification dated 5.3.2014 for appointment of the petitioner in
his place, the respondents have illegally rejected the same by
their order dated 20.8.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Case no. 4
of 2024 by the Collector, Sitamarhi, which is impugned in the
instant application.
4. The application is opposed by learned counsel for
the respondents who submits that the application was not filed
by the father of the petitioner a month before his superannuation
as required under the aforesaid notification and from the
petitioner’s own showing in paragraph no.4 of the writ
application read with Annexure-2 to the writ application, while
the father of the petitioner superannuated from the post of
Chaukidar on 30.6.2020, the application was filed by him for
Patna High Court CWJC No.26 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
the petitioner’s appointment subsequent thereto on 10.8.2020.
As such, it is submitted that there is no merit in the instant writ
application and the same be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
6. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be observed
here that while the notification dated 5.3.2014 of the Home
Police Department requires the superannuating Chaukidar to
file their application for appointment on compassionate ground
a month before their retirement, in the instant case, it is not in
dispute that while the petitioner’s father superannuated on
30.6.2020, the application came to be filed by him more than a
month later on 10.8.2020.
7. As such, in the opinion of the Court, the
respondents were right in rejecting the application vide their
order dated 20.8.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Case no.4 of
2024 by the Collector, Sitamarhi.
8. The Court finds no illegality in the order impugned
and no merit in the instant writ application.
9. The writ application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U
Checking your session…