Patna High Court
Ravi Kumar RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
A dependent of a deceased government employee cannot be denied compassionate appointment solely because the employee’s second marriage was illegal; denial is permissible only if misconduct was proven and punished during the employee’s service.
Summary
The appellant, Ravi Kumar Ranjan, son of a second wife of a deceased government employee, sought compassionate appointment after his application was rejected by the Irrigation Department. The Single Judge had held that the second marriage was illegal and denied family pension and compassionate employment. The appellant appealed, arguing that under the Full Bench judgment of 18.04.2019 (LPA No.1305 of 2013) a dependent cannot be denied compassionate appointment unless the employee was proven guilty of misconduct and punished during service. The High Court condoned a 195‑day delay in filing the appeal and set aside the impugned order of 18.01.2024, directing the respondents to consider the appellant’s claim on merit within three months. The court emphasized that misconduct must be established and punished while the employee was in service before denying compassionate appointment.
Issues considered
- Whether the son of a second wife of a deceased government employee is entitled to compassionate appointment.
- Whether the denial of compassionate appointment based solely on the illegality of the second marriage is legally valid.
- Whether the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal can be condoned.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- second marriage
- government employee
- misconduct
- Rule 23 of the 1976 Rules
- family pension
- delay condonation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.894 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5759 of 2021
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Ranjan Son of Krishna Kumar Yadav Resident of Village-
Dafarkha, Police Station- Triveniganj, District- Supaul. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Triveniganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)
Date : 04-02-2026
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellant and Additional Advocate General-8, learned counsel for the
State.
Re:-I.A. No. 01 of 2025
2. The aforesaid interlocutory application has been
pressed for condoning the delay of 195 days in preferring this appeal.
3. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application,
the delay in preferring this appeal is condoned.
4. Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2025 stands
allowed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.894 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026
2/7
Re:-L.P.A No. 894 of 2024
5. The present appeal is directed against the order dated
18.01.2024 passed in CWJC No. 14216 of 2021 which was heard
along with C.W.J.C No. 5759 of 2021, whereby the Hon’ble Single
Judge has been pleased to dispose of both the writ petition, with a
direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner of first case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 14216 of 2021 and in the
second case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 5759 of 2021, the Hon’ble Single Judge
has held that the second marriage of the Government employee, was
made during subsistence of first marriage, the same is illegal, hence
the second wife is not entitled to any family pension and the son from
the second wife of the deceased employee is not entitled for grant of
compassionate employment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is
admitted fact that Late Krishna Kumar Yadav had married Madhulata
Devi and out of their wedlock, he was blessed with one son
(appellant) and one daughter, namely, Jyoti Kumari and the said
Krishna Kumar Yadav died in harness on 11.06.2015.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after
death of father of the appellant, the appellant has applied for
compassionate employment along with all the relevant documents and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.894 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026
3/7
submitted his application for compassionate employment before the
Respondent no.4 on 04.03.2020. Thereafter, the Respondent no.4 vide
letter no.493 dated 07.07.2020 rejected the claim of the appellant for
compassionate appointment. The appellant has challenged the same in
C.W.J.C No.5759 of 2021, which was dismissed vide order dated
18.01.2024 which is impugned in the present memo of appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to
paragraph nos. 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of the Full Bench judgment
dated 18.04.2019 passed in LPA No. 1305 of 2013 and analogous
cases [reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 500(FB)], which is reproduced
hereinafter:-
“58. In view of rule 23 of the 1976 Rules as also
the decisions of this Court and the decision of the
Supreme Court discussed above, we are of the
opinion that if the second marriage was
performed by the government servant while in
service, the same would amount to misconduct
committed in service. In case, an employee is
proceeded against for such misconduct while in
service and misconduct is proved, the government
may be free to take any action against such
employee. In case of punishment awarded to the
government employee, the same may be a relevant
consideration for denying the prayer for
compassionate appointment of dependents of the
deceased employee. However, if no disciplinary
Patna High Court L.P.A No.894 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026
4/7
proceeding is initiated for any misconduct against
an employee while in service, after his death, his
dependents cannot be denied compassionate
appointment on the ground that while in service
the employee had been guilty of misconduct. In
other words, the claim for compassionate
appointment to the dependents of the deceased
employee can be denied only if the employee had
committed illegalities and misconduct is proved
and he is punished during his service career.
59. Having held so, when we look to the order
dated 13.08.2012 passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWJC No. 9329 of 2012, we find that
while allowing the writ petition the learned Single
Judge has quashed the circular no. 937 dated
23.06.2005 issued under the signature of the Joint
Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and
directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner
on compassionate ground on the post to which he
is entitled.
60. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid
circular dated 23.06. 2005 should not have been
quashed in its entirety. We are also of the opinion
that no direction could have been given by the
learned Single Judge to the respondents to appoint
the petitioner on compassionate ground on the
post to which he is entitled. The learned Single
Judge ought to have quashed the circular to the
extent it prevented the children of the second wife
Patna High Court L.P.A No.894 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026
5/7
from being considered for appointment on
compassionate ground. Similarly, instead of
issuing direction to the respondents to appoint the
petitioner on compassionate ground, the learned
Single Judge ought to have directed the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground as it is
well settled position in law that appointment on
compassionate ground is not a source of
recruitment. It is exception to the general rule.
The purpose of compassionate appointment is to
prevent destitution and penury in the family of a
deceased employee. The person seeking
appointment on compassionate ground under a
scheme has a right to be considered for
appointment, which needs to be decided on the
facts of each individual case keeping in mind as to
whether the applicant needs all stipulations of the
scheme including financial need and other
requirements.
61. In view of the discussions made above, LPA
Nos. 1305 of 2013 and 1608 of 2014 are
dismissed. However, we modify the order dated
13.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in
CWJC No .9329 of 2012 as under:
The impugned circular no. 937 dated
23.06.2005 issued by the Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna stands
quashed to the extent it prevents the
children of the second wife from being
Patna High Court L.P.A No.894 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026
6/7
considered for appointment on
compassionate ground. The respondents
in LPA no. 1305 of 2013 are directed to
consider the claim of the respondent-writ
petitioner Chandra Shekhar Paswan for
appointment on compassionate ground
and issue appropriate orders as early as
possible preferably within three months
from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of the order
62. Since the impugned circular no. 937 dated
23.06.2005 issued by the Government of Bihar,
Patna has been quashed to the extent it prevented
the children of the second wife from being
considered for appointment on compassionate
ground, we dispose of CWJC No. 11445 of 2010
with a direction to the respondents to consider the
claim of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground on merit and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law as
early as possible preferably within three months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
the order.”
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view
of the Full Bench judgment as mentioned aforesaid, the appellant is
entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate
ground on merit.
10. In view of the full bench judgment as mentioned
above, the impugned order dated 18.01.2024, passed in C.W.J.C no.
5759 of 2021 is set aside, and the Letter No.493 dated 07.07.2020
Patna High Court L.P.A No.894 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026
7/7
(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) is also set aside to that extent it
relates to disentitlement of the son of second wife for compassionate
appointment.
11. Accordingly, the present LPA is disposed of in above
terms.
12. The respondent authorities are directed to consider
the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground, in
light of the order of the Full Bench dated 18.04.2019 passed in LPA
No.1305 of 2013 on merit and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of
three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
order.
13. Pending Applications (if any), shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…