Patna High Court
Aashish KumarversusUnion of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the claim for compassionate appointment is barred by delay and laches.
Summary
The petitioner, Aashish Kumar, sought a compassionate appointment in the CRPF after his father, a CT/DVR, died in harness in 2005 when the petitioner was 1½ years old. He claimed to have completed the requisite pre‑selection training and requested a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him. The respondents argued that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of about 20 years, invoking the doctrines of delay and laches. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents (Jagdish Prasad, Umesh Kumar Nagpal, and Local Administration Dept. v. Selvanayagam) which hold that compassionate appointments are meant to relieve immediate hardship and cannot be claimed after a reasonable period has elapsed. Relying on these authorities and the principle that such appointments are not a vested right, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, also ordering any pending applications to stand disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a dependent can claim a compassionate appointment after a prolonged delay of two decades.
- Whether the doctrines of delay and laches bar the petitioner’s claim for appointment.
- Whether compassionate appointment constitutes a vested right enforceable by mandamus.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- delay
- laches
- dependent
- CRPF
- mandamus
- constitutional law
- Articles 14 and 16
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4723 of 2026
======================================================
Aashish Kumar Son of Late- Markandey Prasad, Resident of Village -
Parsaunda Dera, P.O.- Parsaunda, P.S.- Shahpur, District - Bhojpur, State
Bihar, Pin Code- 802112.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, (CRPF), Block No.- 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Sector, Central Reserve Police
Force (CRPF), Tiril Ashram, Durwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834004.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve
Police Force (CRPF), Sembo, Durwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834004.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre Campus, Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Mokamaghat, Patna, Bihar - 800001.
6. The Commandant, 11th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Near Block Colony, Latehar District- Latehar, Jharkhand- 829206.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the U.O.I. : Dr. K. N. Singh, ASG
: Mr. R. K. Sharma, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-03-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature of Mandamus,
commanding and directing the respondents
to reconsider the petitioner’s claim and
grant appointment on compassionate
grounds to any suitable post, in terms of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4723 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
2/6
Notification No. A-VI-15/2025 Rectt. DA-9
dated 14.01.2024, as the petitioner has
successfully qualified the pre-assessment
training, physical test, medical examination
and written examination for the post of
CT/Daftry.
b. And for issuance of any other relief or
reliefs to which the petitioner may be found
entitled in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are that the father of the petitioner, who was serving as
CT/DVR (No. 930110052) in the 11th Battalion, CRPF, Mokama
Ghat, Bihar, died in harness on 26.04.2005. At the relevant time,
the petitioner was only 1 and 1/2 years of age. After acquiring
the educational qualification and the age for being considered
for appointment, the petitioner filed an application before the
competent authority for considering his case for appointment on
compassionate ground, although no such application has been
brought on record. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was called for
pre-selection training and it is said that the petitioner has
completed 15 days’ training for being appointed on
compassionate ground.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
despite being eligible and having attended 15 days’ training, the
petitioner has not been appointed by the respondent authorities.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4723 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
3/6
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Union of
India submits that the father of the petitioner died in harness on
26.04.2005 and at that time, the petitioner was only 1 and 1/2
years of age and now after 20 years, the petitioner has filed an
application, for being appointed on compassionate ground,
which 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 26.04.2005 and at the relevant time, the petitioner was 1 and
1/2 years of age. After attaining majority, he is said to have
submitted an application for being appointed on compassionate
ground, but, only 15 days’ training certificate has been brought
on record to suggest that he is eligible for being appointed on
compassionate ground. Even otherwise it is settled law that
compassionate appointment is given to a dependent of the
deceased employee, who die in harness, to relieve unexpected
immediate hardship caused to the family on account of sudden
demise of the earning member. In the present case the death
occurrence in 2005, in which year the petitioner was 1 and ½
years of age and now he cannot say that he is eligible to be
appointed after he attained majority. The Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.4723 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
4/6
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4723 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
5/6
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4723 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
6/6
compassionate appointment, it is
imperative to keep this vital aspect in
mind.”
9. Even this Court, based on the consideration of the
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.), 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)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…