Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar RautversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the claimant is not entitled to a compassionate appointment due to delay and lack of a contemporaneous application.
Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Raut, sought a compassionate appointment as a sweeper after his father, a sweeper in the Zila Parishad, died in harness in 2010. Although the petitioner later obtained matriculation and filed representations in 2021 and 2022, no appointment was made. The respondents argued that the father was only 8th pass at death, no application was made at the relevant time, and the petitioner’s claim is barred by delay and laches. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents that compassionate appointments are intended to relieve immediate hardship and are not a vested right that can be claimed after a long lapse. Relying on Jagdish Prasad, Umesh Kumar Nagpal, and Local Administration Department judgments, as well as its own earlier decision in Janki Ballabh, the Court held that the petitioner’s claim is untenable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a dependent of a deceased government employee is eligible for a compassionate appointment after a prolonged delay.
- Whether the absence of an application at the time of death bars a later claim for compassionate appointment.
- Whether compassionate appointment constitutes a vested right enforceable after the immediate financial crisis has passed.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- compassionate employment
- delay
- laches
- dependent of deceased employee
- public service recruitment
- constitutional equality
- service law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5387 of 2026
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Raut Son of Late Mahendra Raut, Resident of Village-
Kalyanpur Basti, Dakangala, P.S.-Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner-chief-Executive Officer, Jila
Parishad, Samastipur.
4. The Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Md. Kamil Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.5
For Res. Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“(A) To issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature
of mandamus for directing the respondent to appoint the
petitioner on compassionate ground as father of the petitioner
was died on 23.02.2010, which is within his service tenure.
(B) To direct the respondent concern to confirm the
permanent appoint the petitioner on the compassionate ground at
the post of sweeper as the father of the petitioner was dead on
the time period of his service i.e. on 23.02.2010.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.5387 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/6
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ
petition, are that the father of the petitioner died in harness on
23.02.2010, while working as a Sweeper in the Zila Parishad
Dak Bungalow in Mohiuddin Nagar, Samastipur. At the time of
death of his father, the petitioner was 8 th pass and he submitted
an affidavit before the authorities concerned to the effect that he
is the only son of the deceased employee, but no decision was
taken by the authorities concerned for making appointment on
compassionate basis. The petitioner obtained qualification of
matriculation from Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna in the
year 2021 and then submitted a representation on 31.07.2021
before the D.D.C.-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,
Samastipur for his appointment on compassionate ground and
again submitted a representation on 04.09.2022 before the
Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna for his appointment on compassionate ground, but
no decision was taken on the said representations.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although the father of the petitioner died on 23.02.2010, but till
date, he has not been appointed on compassionate ground,
despite his fulfilling all the requisite qualifications including
submitting his application before the authorities concerned.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5387 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/6
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Zila Parishad and the State submit that the father of the
petitioner died on 23.02.2010 and at the relevant time, he was 8 th
pass, therefore, there was no question of making any
appointment on compassionate ground and even not a single chit
of paper has been brought on record to suggest that he had ever
applied before the competent authority for making appointment
on compassionate ground. Subsequently, the petitioner passed
matriculation from Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna in 2021
and even after passing the said examination, he has not
submitted any application in the prescribed format for being
appointed on compassionate ground.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it appears that the father of
the petitioner died in harness on 23.02.2010 and at the time of
his death, he was 8th pass, and he even did not make any
application for making appointment on compassionate ground.
Subsequently, he is said to have acquired the qualification of
matriculation in the year 2021 and he filed a representation
before the authorities concerned and now in 2026 has filed the
present writ petition for a direction upon the authorities to take
decision on his representation for making appointment on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5387 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
4/6
compassionate ground. The law in this regard is very much
clear. 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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5387 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
5/6
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5387 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
6/6
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(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.