Patna High Court
Vivek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the appellant’s application, filed after the statutory five‑year period, disqualified him from compassionate appointment and the lower court’s dismissal of the writ petition was correct.
Summary
Vivek Kumar, son of a deceased government guard, filed a writ petition seeking a compassionate appointment in the Minor Water Resources Department, arguing that his father's death left his family in financial distress. The District Level Compassionate Committee rejected his application on the ground that it was filed seven years after the death, exceeding the five‑year limit prescribed by the General Administration Department's letter. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, and the appellant challenged that decision by a Letters Patent Appeal. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents on compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such relief is an exceptional, time‑sensitive measure intended to alleviate immediate hardship and is not a vested right. It held that the appellant’s delay was inordinate, unexplained, and contrary to established principles, and that there was no perversity in the lower court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant’s delayed application, filed beyond the five‑year period, bars entitlement to a compassionate appointment.
- Whether the District Level Compassionate Committee’s decision can be set aside on grounds of delay and laches.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under the compassionate appointment scheme despite the lapse of time.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- delay
- laches
- government service
- letters patent appeal
- writ jurisdiction
- equitable relief
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.229 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5950 of 2023
======================================================
Vivek Kumar, Son of Late Krishna Nandan Singh, Resident of Villge- Amba,
P.O. and Police Station - Hariharganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna cum Chairman, District Level Compassionate
Committee, Patna.
4. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Anmol Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 23-02-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Vivek
Kumar, the writ-petitioner, challenging the order dated
18.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.
5950 of 2023.
The appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking
the following relief(s):-
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ preferably in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
2/12
the nature of 'Certiorari' for setting aside
the part of decision taken by the District
Level Compassionate Committee in its
meeting held on 27.1.2023 whereby and
where under the application made by the
petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground has been rejected on
the sole ground of delay in making the
application. The said decision has been
communicated through Memo No.383
dated 27.1.2023.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ preferably in
the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding
upon the respondent authorities to appoint
the petitioner on compassionate ground on
any vacant and sanctioned post in Minor
Water Resources Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna with all consequential
benefits.
(iii) To grant any other relief(s) for which the
petitioner may be found entitle to in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. It is the case of the appellant that his father was
employed as Guard in the Minor Water Resources Department
as a regular Government employee and posted in the office of
Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna. His date of retirement was
31.01.2031, however, he died on 06.04.2014, and at the time of
his death, the appellant was aged about 14 years and at that
time, the appellant’s mother was not eligible for appointment, as
she was illiterate. The elder sister of the appellant was married
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
3/12
and she expressed her unwillingness for appointment. Two
sisters of the appellant were younger to the appellant and they
were also minor in the year 2014. The appellant completed the
Secondary School Examination in the year 2020 and during
Covid-19 period he could not take any positive steps for
compassionate appointment and after the relaxation granted by
the Government in country wide lock down he made an
application before the concerned authority but the same was
turned down by the District Level Compassionate Committee on
the ground of delay.
3. When the notice was issued, counter affidavit has
been filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by Sunil Kumar, Chief
Engineer, M.W.R.D., Patna wherein it is stated as follows:-
“9) That it is stated that the petitioner's father
was appointed as a class four employee in
the office of the Chief Engineer, Minor
Water Resource Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
10) That it is further stated that the petitioner's
father died on harness on 06.04.2014
during his service period.
11) That thereafter the petitioner has given his
application for his compassionate
appointment on 19.07.2021 for the first
time in the office of Chief Engineer Minor
Water Resource Department, Patna i.e.
after the delay of 7 years.
12) That it is further stated that thereafter the
vide letter no. 2376 dated 24.11.2022, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
4/12
Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resource
Department, Patna has requested the
Deputy Collector, Establishment to take
decision with regard to the compassionate
appointment of the petitioner (letter
already annexed in the writ petition).
13) That it is further stated that thereafter the
meeting of the District Level
Compassionate Committee was convened
on 27.01.2023 under the Chairmanship of
District Magistrate, Patna in which the
claim of the petitioner was rejected on the
ground of delay.
14) That it is further stated that the ground
taken by the Committee for rejection of the
claim of the petitioner is that he has given
his application for the said appointment on
19.07.2021 i.e. much later than the
maximum time prescribed for the
application of the compassionate
appointment. That, as per the letter no.
2822 dated 27.04.1995 of the General
Administration Department, the time for
applying for the compassionate
appointment is within five years of death of
the employee.
15) That it is further stated that the very purpose
of the compassionate appointment is to
provide financial assistance to the family
members of the deceased employee who
has died all of a sudden and was the sole
earner of the family and further the family
has been able to survive for last seven
years and has given the said application
for compassionate appointment after the
delay of seven years, therefore the said
application of the petitioner was rejected in
the light of the letter no. 2822 dated
27.04.1995 of the General Administration
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
5/12
Department.
16) That in view of the aforesaid facts stated
above it is clear that the statement made by
the petitioner in the writ application is not
sustainable in the eye of law and in this
view of the matter this writ petition has got
no merit and the same is fit to be
dismissed.”
4. Similarly, supplementary counter affidavit was also
filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by Anisha Bharti,
Senior Deputy Collector, Patna wherein it is stated as follows:-
“9) That in the meeting of the District Level
Compassionate Committee held on
29.03.2022, it had been decided to seek
report as to when the petitioner has
submitted application in the concerned
department. In this regard the Chief
Engineer, Minor Water Resource
Department vide letter no. 2376, dated
24.11.2022 has sent his report that the
application for compassionate
appointment has been submitted on
19.07.2021.
10) That per as letter no. 2822, dated
27.04.1995 issued by the General
Administration Department, Bihar, Patna
that the dependent has to submit the
application form within five years from the
death of the deceased Government servant.
11) That in view of the aforesaid facts, the
District Level Compassionate Committee
has rejected the application filed by the
petitioner vide memo no. 383, dated
27.01.2023 (Annexure-3 of the writ
petition) as it has become time barred i.e.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
6/12
the application has not been submitted by
the dependent of the deceased within five
years of the death of the Government
Employee.”
5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned
counsel for both the parties considered the ratio laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1994) 4
SCC 138; The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari &
Ors. Etc. passed in Civil Appeal nos. 8842-8855 of 2022;
Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 1 SCC
301; State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath, reported in (1998) 2 SCC
412 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage
Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and
observed as follows:-
“7. The law is well settled in respect of
appointment on compassionate ground.
The Apex Court relying on the ratio of
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana and Others reported in (1994) 4
SCC 138, further in Paragrpah No. 7.2 in
the case of The State of West Bengal Vs.
Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. passed in
Civil Appeal nos. 8842-8855 of 2022, has
laid down following principles of
compassionate appointment, which are
reproduced hereinafter:
"7.2. On consideration of the
aforesaid decisions of this
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
7/12
Court, the following principles
emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate
appointment makes a departure
from the general provisions
providing for appointment to a
post by following a particular
procedure of recruitment. Since
such a provision enables
appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it
is in the nature of an exception
to the general provisions and
must be resorted to only in order
to achieve the stated objectives,
i.e., to enable the family of the
deceased to get over the sudden
financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate
grounds is not a source of
recruitment. The reason for
making such a benevolent
scheme by the State or the public
sector undertaking is to see that
the dependents of the deceased
are not deprived of the means of
livelihood. It only enables the
family of the deceased to get
over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is
not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time in future.
Compassionate employment
cannot be claimed or offered
after a lapse of time and after
the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment
should be provided immediately
to redeem the family in distress.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
8/12
It is improper to keep such a
case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the
family is in financial crisis, all
relevant aspects must be borne
in mind including the income of
the family, its liabilities, the
terminal benefits if any, received
by the family, the age,
dependency and marital status
of its members, together with the
income from any other source.
8. In the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of
Bihar reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301,
Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the
object of compassionate appointment held
that the object of appointment of a
dependent of the deceased employees 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.
9. In case of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath,
reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the purpose of
providing employment to a dependent of a
Government servant dying in harness in
preference to anybody else, is to mitigate
the hardship caused to the family of the
employee on account of his unexpected
death while still in service. It was further
observed that none of these consideration
can operate while the application is made
after a long period of time.
10. Reiterating the aspect of delay and laches
would dis-entitle the discretionary relief
being granted, the Apex Court in the case
of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage board V. T.T. Murali Babu,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
9/12
reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held in
paragraph no. 16 which is reproduced
hereinafter :-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and
laches should not be lightly
brushed aside. A writ court is
required to weigh the
explanation offered and the
acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it
is exercising an extraordinary
and equitable jurisdiction. As a
constitutional court it has a duty
to protect the rights of the
citizens but simultaneously it is
to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an
aggrieved person, without
adequate reason, approaches the
court at his own leisure or
pleasure, the Court would be
under legal obligation to
scrutinize whether the lis at a
belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted,
delay comes in the way of equity
In certain circumstances delay
and laches may not be fatal but
in most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster
for the litigant who knocks at the
doors of the Court. Delay
reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant - a
litigant who has forgotten the
basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest
thief of time" and second, law
does not permit one to sleep and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
10/12
rise like a phoenix. Delay does
bring in hazard and causes
injury to the lis”
11. Based on the above principles and the
pleadings made in the writ petition and the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondents, the admitted facts are that the
father of the petitioner died on 06.04.2014
while he was in service and for the first
time, the petitioner made an application on
19.07.2021 for consideration of his
appointment on compassionate ground
after much delay of seven years and it
cannot be said that the family of the
petitioner faced any hardship on account of
unexpected death in view of the fact that
the petitioner has sustained to live till date,
the present writ petition requires no
interference.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant though placed
before us some of the notifications of the State Government
issued by the General Administration Department but we are of
the view that these are not applicable in the case of the
appellant. Admittedly, when the death has taken place on
06.04.2014, the appellant was minor and he attained majority on
12.03.2018 and submitted the application for compassionate
appointment on 19.07.2021. The counter affidavit makes it very
clear that such application is to be filed within a period of five
years from the date of death in terms of Letter No. 2822 dated
27.04.1995 of the General Administration Department.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
11/12
Therefore, not only the appellant did not file the application for
compassionate appointment within the prescribed period but
also even after he attained majority on 12.03.2018. The
inordinate delay in filing such application has not been
explained, and in view of the settled position of law that such
appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any
time in future and it cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and the object of such appointment is to give a chance to
the dependent of the deceased employee who die in harness to
relieve the unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused
to the family by the sudden demise of the earning member of the
family, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
rightly applied the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid cases.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant
and going through the impugned order and particularly the
counter affidavits filed by the respondents in the writ petition,
we are of the view that there is no perversity or palpable
unreasonableness in the impugned order. In view of the limited
scope of the appellate jurisdiction for interference in an intra-
court appeal against the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.229 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
12/12
8. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
9. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 24.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…