Patna High Court
Indu Devi and AnrversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
No compassionate appointment can be made as there is no provision for such in case of death after retirement and the delay defeats its purpose.
Summary
The petitioners sought to quash a 2017 order that rejected petitioner Gopal Kumar Pandey's application for a compassionate appointment in the Border Security Force, filed on behalf of his deceased father who had retired as a Sepoy in 1995 and died in 1997. The petitioners argued that the applicant, now an adult, was eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds despite the father's death occurring after retirement. The respondents contended that compassionate appointments are not available for deaths occurring post‑retirement and that the 18‑year delay in filing the application defeated its purpose. The court examined the statutory framework and found no provision for compassionate appointment in such circumstances and noted the undue delay. Consequently, the court held that the application had no merit and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a compassionate appointment can be granted to the child of a BSF personnel who died after retirement
- Whether the 18‑year delay in filing the application defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment
- Whether any statutory provision exists for compassionate appointment in case of death of a retired employee
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- Border Security Force
- retirement
- delay
- writ jurisdiction
- service law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5509 of 2017
======================================================
1. Indu Devi wife of late Bijay Shankar Pandey,
2. Gopal Kumar Pandey son of late Bijay Shankar Pandey,
Both are residents of Village Simari, P.S. Simari, District Buxar at present
both are resides at mohalla - Krishnanagar, Mihijam, P.S. Mihijam, District
Jamtara, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Border Security Force, 10 C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi.
3. The Commandant, 12 Battalion, B.S.F. Shikar (Deva Baba Nanak) District
Gurdaspur, Punjab.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC
Mr. R.K.Sharma, CGC
Mr. Lokesh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant application
praying for quashing the order dated 16.2.2017 passed by the
respondent no.3 whereby the application of the petitioner no.2
for his appointment on compassionate ground in place of his
father was rejected.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that the father of the
petitioner no.2, who was working as Sepoy in the Border
Security Force, took voluntary retirement on 27.12.1995.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5509 of 2017(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
Subsequent thereto, after having retired from service the father
of the petitioner no.2 died on 28.9.1997.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that at the relevant time, the petitioner no.2 was one year old.
Having attained his majority, he filed his application for
appointment on compassionate ground on 22.12.2015 which
came to be rejected by the order impugned.
5. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents who referring to the order
impugned and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents submits that the petitioners have not made out any
case for appointment on compassionate ground. Firstly, the
death of father of the petitioner no.2 and husband of petitioner
no.1 did not take place while in service but after he had retired.
Further, the step taken by the petitioners of filing an application
suffers from gross delay in so far as the application of petitioner
no.2 for appointment has been filed more than 18 years after the
death of his father. As such, it is submitted that there is no merit
in the writ application and the same be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, it transpires that the
father of the petitioner no.2 was not in service having obtained
Patna High Court CWJC No.5509 of 2017(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
voluntary retirement on 27.12.1995. On the date of death of his
father ie 28.9.1997, the petitioner no.2 was a 1 year old child.
The application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment
having been made 18 years after the death of his father also
frustrates the very purpose of grant of compassionate
appointment.
7. In any case, there is no provision for compassionate
appointment in case of death of a person who has already
retired.
8. There is absolutely no merit in the writ application
and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.