Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Harshit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The 2019 circular does not apply retrospectively; the petitioner’s case must be decided under the 1995 memo.

Summary

The petitioner, Harshit Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the District Compassionate Appointment Committee's rejection of his application for a compassionate appointment. The Committee rejected his claim on the basis that a 2019 circular (Letter No. 11959) was applicable, whereas the petitioner argued that at the time of his application in 2014, the 1995 memo (Memo No. 2822) governed, which required a filing within five years of the deceased's death—a deadline he met. The court examined whether the 2019 circular could be applied retrospectively to applications filed before its issuance. It held that the circular was prospective and could not affect the petitioner’s case, which must be assessed under the 1995 memo. Consequently, the court set aside the Committee’s order and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh within six months, allowing the writ petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the 2019 circular (Letter No. 11959) applies retrospectively to compassionate appointment applications filed before its issuance.
  • Whether the petitioner’s application filed within the five‑year period under Memo No. 2822 dated 27.04.1995 is valid despite the later circular.
  • Whether the rejection by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee can be set aside.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel appointment on compassionate grounds.

Subjects

  • compassionate appointment
  • writ of mandamus
  • circular
  • retrospective application
  • administrative law
  • government instruction

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3612 of 2026
     ======================================================
     Harshit Kumar Son of Late Dr. Rajen Kumar, Resident of Flat No. 301,
     Block-Block, Aparna Complex, Mukhdumpur, Digha, P.S.-Digha, District-
     Patna.
                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary General
     Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar.
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The District Magistrate cum Chairman of District Compassionate
     Appointment Committee, District- Darbhanga, Bihar.
4.   The Civil Surgeon, District-Darbhanga, Bihar.
5.   The Deputy Collector, Establishment, District-Darbhanga.
6.    The Medical Officer In-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Hanuman Nagar,
      District-Darbhanga.
                                                          ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Government Pleader 17
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     Date : 17-03-2026

                        Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

      learned Counsel for the State.

                        2. The present writ petition has been filed by the

      petitioner for quashing         Memo no. 341 dated 12.06.2024,

      (Annexure-7) whereby the District Compassionate Committee,

      Darbhanga, in its meeting dated 12.06.2024 had rejected the

      prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the

      ground that the instruction of the Respondent No. 1 as contained in

      Letter No. 11959 dated 30.08.2019 is not applicable in the case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3612 of 2026 dt.17-03-2026
                                           2/3




         the petitioner as the said instruction in vogue from the date of the

         notification; whereas the father of the Petitioner died on

         13.06.2009. The petitioner further prays for consequential writ of

         Mandamus, commanding the Respondent Authorities especially

         the respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate

         basis against any post as per his eligibility and in terms of the

         instruction of the government as on the date of the death of the

         father of the petitioner the instruction of the state government as

         contained in Memo no. 2822 dated 27.04.1995 was in vogue, in

         which under clause 6 specifically contemplated that application for

         compassionate appointment by the dependents of the deceased

         employee must be submitted within 5 years from the date of death

         of the employee. In the present case, the father of the petitioner

         died on 13.06.2009 and the petitioner has made his representation

         for compassionate appointment on 03.06.2014 to respondent no. 4,

         which was within 5 years.

                            3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

         the consideration of his application for compassionate appointment

         has been rejected by the authorities               on the ground that the

         petitioner does not fulfill the criteria laid down in the letter issued

         by General Administration Department                 vide Letter No. 6082

         dated 15.04.2024. In the light of Circular No.11959 dated

         30.08.2019,      he    submits     that      petitioner   had   applied   for
             Patna High Court CWJC No.3612 of 2026 dt.17-03-2026
                                                        3/3




                      compassionate appointment in the year 2014 and in that very time

                      the circular contained in Memo No.2822 dated 27.04.1995 was

                      applicable. He submits that the circular issued by General

                      Administration Department dated 30.08.2019 shall be applicable

                      from prospective date not from retrospective date.

                                         4. In response thereof, Counsel for the State

                      submits that counter affidavit is necessary to be filed and seeks

                      four weeks time for filing counter affidavit.

                                         5. It transpires to this Court that the contention of

                      the Counsel for the petitioner is correct that Circular dated

                      30.08.2019 shall not apply to the petitioner. As such, Annexure-

                      P/7 dated 12.06.2024 for the petitioner is concerned is hereby set

                      aside. Respondent No.3, the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman of

                      District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Darbhanga, is

                      hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of

                      the circular contained in Memo No.2822 dated 27.04.1995

                      (Annexure-P/3) afresh at the earliest preferably within six months.

                                         6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands

                      allowed.


                                                                     (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          18.03.2026
Transmission Date


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.