The Patna High Court has ruled that compassionate appointments are meant only to address immediate financial distress after an employee’s death. The Court rejected a plea filed decades later, stating such claims cannot be made after a prolonged delay.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, reiterating that such employment is intended only to help families overcome the immediate financial crisis caused by the sudden death of a government employee. The Bench held that a claim made more than three decades after the employee’s death cannot be justified under the scheme’s objectives.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Partha Sarthy, who upheld the order dated December 4, 2020, issued by the District Compassionate Committee, Rohtas, rejecting the petitioner’s request as time-barred.
ALSO READ: Widow’s Remarriage No Bar to Compassionate Appointment Under Rule 51B: Kerala High Court
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Randhir Kumar, approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, Late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Bihar Police, who died on April 30, 1990.
At the time of death, the petitioner was around two years old. His mother, Sheo Kumari Devi, initially applied for compassionate employment in 1990, but the authorities required a succession certificate due to the deceased employee’s second marriage. She later secured the certificate and received post-retirement dues.
In 2003, she submitted a representation requesting an appointment for her son, who was then 15 years old and therefore ineligible. The petitioner later filed applications in 2011 and subsequently moved the High Court in 2012, resulting in directions for reconsideration. Ultimately, the Compassionate Committee rejected his application in 2020 as being made more than five years after the employee’s death.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Stand
Counsel argued that the mother had applied in time and that the delay was due to procedural complications, including the issuance of the succession certificate. It was further contended that since the matter had been pending for years, rejecting the application after so long was arbitrary.
State’s Position
The State countered that the scheme requires a timely application to address immediate financial distress. Since the petitioner was a minor in 1990 and even in 2003, he could not be considered. The Committee’s rejection was therefore justified and lawful.
Court’s Observations
Relying on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, the High Court reiterated the purpose of compassionate appointment:
“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis…”
The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right or a means to secure employment after years, but an exception to merit-based recruitment meant solely for immediate relief.
Justice Sarthy noted:
“The application dated 30.6.2003 was made when the petitioner was about 15 years old and not eligible. The application dated 5.9.2019 was filed more than 18 years after the death of the deceased employee.”
Finding the claim to be inordinately delayed and contrary to the objective of the compassionate appointment scheme, the Court upheld the Committee’s decision and dismissed the writ petition:
“The Court finds no error in the order impugned nor any merit in the case of the petitioner.”
Case Title:
Randhir Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18068 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT
