Patna High Court
Md. Shamshad Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.525 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17804 of 2019
======================================================
Md. Shamshad Alam, Son of Late Mahmood Alam, Resident of Mohalla-
Mahbood Khan Tola, P.S. K. Hat, District- Purnia.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Purnia.
4. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Purnia.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 03-03-2025
Appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 26.08.2022 passed in CWJC No. 17804 of 2019.
2. Appellant’s father who was a Daftary in the Office of
Superintendent of Police, Purnia died in harness on 29.12.1991. As
on the date of his father’s death, he was minor and aged about ten
years. It is learnt that he had filed an application for compassionate
appointment as and when he attains major in the year, 1999.
Thereafter, there was inaction on the part of the respondents and,
resultantly, he was pursuing the matter and ultimately he has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
2/10
knocked the doors of this Court in filing CWJC No. 15697 of 2011
and it was disposed of on 14.11.2013 with certain directions. For
non-compliance of the order dated 14.11.2013 passed in CWJC
No. 15697 of 2011, the appellant was compelled to file contempt
petition vide MJC No. 4448 of 2014 and it was disposed of on
22.02.2018 reserving liberty to the appellant to assail action of the
respondents. Thereafter, he has filed CWJC No. 17804 of 2019
and it was disposed of on 26.08.2022 with certain observations
which reads as under:-
“This Court would observe that pe-
titioner cannot be permitted to file successive
writ petitions, one after the other seeking the
same relief, which has been granted in the
earlier writ proceedings. If at all the authori-
ties have not complied with the earlier direc-
tion of this Court, the petitioner’s remedy
would lie in the enforcement of the order
passed in the earlier proceedings, in which
MJC No. 4448/2014 as per the records is
pending. There is no material on record to
show that any order has been passed by the
authorities after the petitioner’s earlier writ
proceedings, which may require any interfer-
ence by this Court.
The writ petition is misconceived
and dismissed.”
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the
learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2022, he has filed the present
Letters Patent Appeal No. 525 of 2022.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
3/10
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
was no fault on the part of the appellant. He has been denied com-
passionate appointment in the light of social scheme of the State
Government in providing compassionate appointment. Therefore,
learned Single Judge has committed error in making observation
that appellant was filing litigation after litigation. It was funda-
mental right of the appellant as and when he is aggrieved by the
orders or a decision, he has to invoke certain statutory remedy and
it has been invoked while filing CWJC No. 17804 of 2019.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Compassionate appointment is not a fundamental
right and it is governed in accordance with the Rules or Executive
Order of the State Government. No doubt, compassionate appoint-
ment is governed by social legislation or social scheme of the State
Government which was in vogue as on 29.12.1991, the date on
which appellant’s father died assuming that there is five years limi-
tation period in the year 1991, that has lapsed in the year 1996
whereas appellant has filed application for compassionate appoint-
ment in the year 1999. Further, it is to be noted that appellant fam-
ily survived in hardship from 1991 to 1999, the date on which ap-
plication for compassionate appointment has been made. Hon’ble
Supreme Court time and again held that there is no vested right in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
4/10
respect of seeking compassionate appointment. Recently, Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K.
(Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
30532 of 2019) decided on 11.02.2025 has laid down 26 criterias
for compassionate appointment which are as under:-
“11. Decisions of this Court on the
contours of appointment on compassionate
ground are legion and it would be apt for us
to consider certain well-settled principles,
which have crystallized through precedents
into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential
but contextual order):
(a) Appointment on compassionate
ground, which is offered on humanitarian
grounds, is an exception to the rule of equal-
ity in the matter of public employment [Gen-
eral Manager, State Bank of India v Anju
Jain reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475].
(b) Compassionate appointment
cannot be made in the absence of rules or in-
structions [Haryana State Electricity Board
v. Krishna Devi reported in (2002) 10 SCC
246].
(c) Compassionate appointment is
ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved
out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to
meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family
either on account of death or of medical in-
validation of the breadwinner while in service
[V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India reported in
(2008) 13 SCC 730].
(d) The whole object of granting
compassionate employment by an employer
being intended to enable the family members
of a deceased or an incapacitated employee
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
5/10
to tide over the sudden financial crisis, ap-
pointments on compassionate ground should
be made immediately to redeem the family in
distress [Sushma Gosain v. Union of India
reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468].
(e) Since rules relating to compas-
sionate appointment permit a sidedoor entry,
the same have to be given strict interpretation
[Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi re-
ported in (2009) 11 SCC 453].
(f) Compassionate appointment is a
concession and not a right and the criteria
laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all
aspirants [SAIL v. Madhusudan Das reported
in (2008) 15 SCC 560].
(g) None can claim compassionate
appointment by way of inheritance [State of
Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar reported
in (2009) 13 SCC 600].
(h) Appointment based solely on de-
scent is inimical to our constitutional scheme,
and being an exception, the scheme has to be
strictly construed and confined only to the
purpose it seeks to achieve [Bhawani Prasad
Sonkar v. Union of India reported in (2011) 4
SCC 209].
(i) None can claim compassionate
appointment, on the occurrence of death/med-
ical incapacitation of the concerned employee
(the sole bread earner of the family), as if it
were a vested right, and any appointment
without considering the financial condition of
the family of the deceased is legally imper-
missible [Union of India v. Amrita Sinha re-
ported in (2021) 20 SCC 695].
(j) An application for compassion-
ate appointment has to be made immediately
upon death/incapacitation and in any case
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
6/10
within a reasonable period thereof or else a
presumption could be drawn that the family of
the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in
immediate need of financial assistance. Such
appointment not being a vested right, the
right to apply cannot be exercised at any time
in future and it cannot be offered whatever the
lapse of time and after the crisis is over
[Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar re-
ported in (2009) 13 SCC 112].
(k) The object of compassionate
employment is not to give a member of a fam-
ily of the deceased employee a post much less
a post for post held by the deceased. Offering
compassionate employment as a matter of
course irrespective of the financial condition
of the family of the deceased and making
compassionate appointments in posts above
Class III and IV is legally impermissible
[Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138].
(l) Indigence of the dependents of
the deceased employee is the first precondi-
tion to bring the case under the scheme of
compassionate appointment. If the element of
indigence and the need to provide immediate
assistance for relief from financial destitution
is taken away from compassionate appoint-
ment, it would turn out to be a reservation in
favour of the dependents of the employee who
died while in service which would directly be
in conflict with the ideal of equality guaran-
teed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu-
tion [Union of India v. B. Kishore reported in
(2011) 13 SCC 131].
(m) The idea of compassionate ap-
pointment is not to provide for endless com-
passion [I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tri-
pathi reported in (2007) 6 SCC 162].
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
7/10
(n) Satisfaction that the family
members have been facing financial distress
and that an appointment on compassionate
ground may assist them to tide over such dis-
tress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil
the eligibility criteria for such appointment
[State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari re-
ported in (2012) 9 SCC 545].
(o) There cannot be reservation of a
vacancy till such time as the applicant be-
comes a major after a number of years, unless
there are some specific provisions [Sanjay
Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 7
SCC 192].
(p) Grant of family pension or pay-
ment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as
substitute for providing employment assis-
tance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that
too if provided by the scheme for compassion-
ate appointment and not otherwise, that a de-
pendent who was a minor on the date of
death/incapacitation, can be considered for
appointment upon attaining majority [Canara
Bank (supra)].
(q) An appointment on compassion-
ate ground made many years after the
death/incapacitation of the employee or with-
out due consideration of the financial re-
sources available to the dependent of the de-
ceased/incapacitated employee would be di-
rectly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution [National Institute of Tech-
nology v. Niraj Kumar Singh reported in
(2007) 2 SCC 481].
(r) Dependents if gainfully em-
ployed cannot be considered [Haryana Public
Service Commission v. Harinder Singh re-
ported in (1998) 5 SCC 452].
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
8/10
(s) The retiral benefits received by
the heirs of the deceased employee are to be
taken into consideration to determine if the
family of the deceased is left in penury. The
court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to
one of “not very well-to-do”. [General Man-
ager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary reported in
(2004) 7 SCC 271].
(t) Financial condition of the fam-
ily of the deceased employee, allegedly in dis-
tress or penury, has to be evaluated or else
the object of the scheme would stand defeated
inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and
every dependent of an employee dying-inhar-
ness would claim employment as if public em-
ployment is heritable [Union of India v.
Shashank Goswami reported in (2012) 11
SCC 271, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Lath-
eesh reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350, National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank
Chand reported in (2004) 12 SCC 487 and
Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar
Taneja reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265].
(u) The terminal benefits, invest-
ments, monthly family income including the
family pension and income of family from
other sources, viz. agricultural land were
rightly taken into consideration by the au-
thority to decide whether the family is living
in penury. [Somvir Singh (supra)].
(v) The benefits received by widow
of deceased employee under Family Benefit
Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot
stand in her way for compassionate appoint-
ment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be
equated with benefits of compassionate ap-
pointment. [Balbir Kaur v. SAIL reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 493]
(w) The fixation of an income slab
is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the ele-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
9/10
ment of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the
facts of each individual case have to be borne
in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an
income slab subserves the purpose of bring-
ing objectivity and uniformity in the process
of decision making. [State of H.P. v. Shashi
Kumarreported in (2019) 3 SCC 653].
(x) Courts cannot confer benedic-
tion impelled by sympathetic consideration
[Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha
Ramchandra Ambekar reported in (1994) 2
SCC 718].
(y) Courts cannot allow compas-
sionate appointment dehors the statutory reg-
ulations/instructions. Hardship of the candi-
date does not entitle him to appointment de-
hors such regulations/instructions [SBI v. Jas-
pal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571].
(z) An employer cannot be com-
pelled to make an appointment on compas-
sionate ground contrary to its policy
[Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmen-
dra Sharma reported in (2007) 8 SCC 148].”
It would be of some relevance to
mention here that all the decisions referred to
above are by coordinate benches of two
Judges. ”
7. In the light of the aforementioned criterias read with
the fact that appellant family has overcome harness in the family
from the year 1991 to 1999 and even to this day. Therefore, appel-
lant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the orders of
the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2022 passed in CWJC No.
17804 of 2019 to the extent that appellant was slept over for many
Patna High Court L.P.A No.525 of 2022 dt.03-03-2025
10/10
years in knocking the doors of the Courts time and again. He had
cause of action accrued depending upon the certain development,
therefore, the aforementioned observation of the learned Single
Judge stands expunged.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present Letters
Patent Appeal stands dismissed on the issue of belated claim and
no vested right to claim compassionate appointment.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date N/A