Patna High Court
Tarranum KhatoonversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The 2016 Control Order cannot be applied retrospectively; compassionate appointments must be decided based on the scheme in force at the time of the deceased’s death, rendering the rejection illegal.
Summary
The widow of a deceased PDS dealer applied for a compassionate appointment as a PDS dealer on 3 February 2016. The State of Bihar rejected her application on 22 November 2017, invoking the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which requires a matriculate qualification. The petitioner contended that the qualification requirement could not be applied retrospectively because the policy at the time of her husband’s death (May 2015) did not prescribe any educational minimum. The Court relied on its earlier decision in LPA No. 299 of 2020 and several Supreme Court judgments holding that compassionate appointments must be governed by the scheme in force on the date of death, not by later amendments. Consequently, the Court held that the 2016 Control Order could not be applied retrospectively and set aside the impugned order, directing the authorities to consider the petition afresh. The writ petition was allowed in its entirety.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which imposes a matriculate qualification, can be applied retrospectively to a compassionate appointment application filed after the death of the incumbent but before the Order came into force.
- Whether the policy prevailing at the time of the employee’s death governs the entitlement to a compassionate appointment.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- PDS dealer
- retrospective application
- educational qualification
- Bihar PDS
- Control Order 2016
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4933 of 2018
======================================================
Tarranum Khatoon, Wife of Late Shaukat Ali, resident of Village- Chak
Abdullah, Police Station- Sakara, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar trough the Secretary, Department of Food & Consumer
Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Under Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Collector-cum- Chairman, District Level Selection Committee,
Muzaffarpur.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer (West), Muzaffarpur.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Pranav Ranjan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC 4.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
14 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“That the present writ
application is being filed on behalf of the
petitioner for quashing of the District
Level Selection Committee Proceeding
dated 22.11.2017 so far as the petitioner
is concerned by which the application of
petitioner for grant of appointment of
PDS Dealer on compassionate ground
has been rejected on the ground that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4933 of 2018(14) dt.02-02-2026
2/6
petitioner is not Matriculate.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of
the petitioner died on 29.05.2015 and the petitioner has filed an
application seeking compassionate appointment on 03.02.2016.
Learned counsel submits that the authority has rejected the
application made by the petitioner solely on the ground that the
petitioner is not a matriculate pass as per the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Control’ order) which came into effect from
March, 2016. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order
dated 22.11.2017 passed by the authority is contrary to the
Judgment of this Hon’ble High Court passed in LPA No. 299 of
2020 dated 15.03.2024 and also the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel submits that the
provisions of the law as it stood on the date of the death of the
incumbent and the date of application should be taken into
consideration while dealing with the said application made for
compassionate appointment and not the provisions of the
Control order, 2016. Learned counsel submits that there is no
requirement that an applicant to PDS dealer should be a
matriculate pass prior to the coming into force of the Control
order, 2016. Learned counsel, therefore, prays this Hon’ble
Court to allow the present writ petition setting aside the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4933 of 2018(14) dt.02-02-2026
3/6
impugned order dated 22.11.2017 and direct the respondent-
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh duly
taking into consideration the law laid down by this Hon’ble
Court as well the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has
stated that the application of the petitioner was considered
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Control order,
2016 which mandates that the applicant to the PDS shops should
be a matriculate pass besides other criteria. Learned counsel
submits that the law which is prevalent as on the date of
considering the application will be taken into consideration and
not the date of death of the PDS dealer. Learned counsel has
also submitted that the State of Bihar has issued certain
instructions vide Memo No. 4842 dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure
P/2) wherein it has been clearly mandated that any application
made after coming into force of the Control order, 2016 shall be
dealt with in accordance with the said provisions only. Learned
counsel, therefore, prays this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the
present writ petition.
5. A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4933 of 2018(14) dt.02-02-2026
4/6
299 of 2020 dated 15.03.2024 under similar circumstances, has
held as under:-
“11. It is necessary to quote
the relevant judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal
No. 7752 of 2021 arising out of Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 1564 of 2021
(The Secretary To Govt. Department of
Education (Primary) & Ors. vs.
Bheemesh @ Bheemappa. In the said
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that applicability of modified
scheme with respect to appointment on
compassionate grounds would be based
on a fixed criteria, like date of death,
rather than indeterminate factor, like
date of consideration of claim.
12. On the said subject matter
of compassionate appointment, in the
case of State of M.P. v. Ashish Awasthi
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 it has been
held at para 5 that as per the settled
proposition of law laid down by this
Court for appointment on
compassionate ground, the policy
prevalent at the time of death of the
deceased employee only is required to be
considered and not the subsequent
policy. In para 6 of the said judgment,
while discussing the case of Indian Bank
v. Promila reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729
it is observed and held that claim for
compassionate appointment must be
decided only on the basis of relevant
scheme prevalent on date of demise of
the employee and subsequent scheme
cannot be looked into. Similar view has
Patna High Court CWJC No.4933 of 2018(14) dt.02-02-2026
5/6
been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496.”
6. Admittedly in the present case also the husband of
the petitioner died on 29.05.2015 and the petitioner had made an
application for compassionate appointment on 03.02.2016,
however, the authority has passed the impugned order of
rejection on 22.11.2017 solely on the ground that the petitioner
is not a matriculate pass as per the provisions of the Control
order, 2016. However, it is to be noted that prior to coming into
force of the Control Order, 2016 there was no minimum
education qualification prescribed for appointment of any PDS
dealer. Further, the petitioner has made her application on
03.02.2016 and her case was also recommended for
appointment on 09.02.2016 by the Block Supply Officer, Kanti
Muzaffarpur. Having regard to the law laid down by this
Hon’ble Court in the above mentioned case, the rejection of her
application solely on the ground that the Control order, 2016
does not permit an applicant who is not a matriculate pass to be
appointed is without any legal basis. The Control order, 2016
can be applied prospectively and not retrospectively, the date of
death of the husband of the petitioner and also the date of her
filing the application have to be necessarily taken into
consideration for considering her case and not coming into force
Patna High Court CWJC No.4933 of 2018(14) dt.02-02-2026
6/6
of the Control order, 2016.
7. Having regard to the same, the impugned order
dated 22.11.2017 is set aside, the respondent-authority is
directed to pass fresh orders for appointing the petitioner as a
PDS dealer duly taking into consideration the observations of
this Hon’ble Court.
8. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition
stands allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…