Case Background
The petitioner is the son of a female employee who was serving in the Civil Courts at Kishanganj. His mother died in harness on 29.01.2016 while still in service.
After her death, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment on 10.03.2016. He sought appointment to a Class IV post in the Civil Courts, Kishanganj, as a dependent of the deceased employee.
Despite his application being filed soon after his mother’s death, the petitioner’s claim was not acted upon by the authorities. Feeling aggrieved by this inaction, he approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction.
In the writ petition, the petitioner asked for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the State of Bihar, the Patna High Court administration, and the District and Sessions Judge, Kishanganj, to appoint him on compassionate grounds against a Class IV post. He also requested that his case be considered in light of the High Court’s circulars regarding compassionate appointment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri, examined both the factual timeline and the relevant policy relating to compassionate appointments in the Civil Courts.
First, the Court noted two critical dates. The petitioner’s mother died on 29.01.2016. The petitioner submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment on 10.03.2016.
The Court then considered the policy of the High Court dealing with compassionate appointments. A policy decision dated 04.01.2016 earmarked 3% of the total sanctioned posts for compassionate appointment. It was stated on behalf of the respondents that this policy was effective from 04.01.2016.
According to the respondents’ counter statement, the total cadre strength of the relevant posts was 66. Under the 3% quota, this worked out to two posts reserved for appointment on compassionate grounds.
The respondents argued that these two posts had already been filled. They stated that two individuals, namely Shri Vikram Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Chandan Kumar Singh, had been appointed against the 3% quota. Therefore, according to them, there was no post available for the petitioner under the compassionate appointment quota.
The Court carefully examined this argument along with the dates connected to those two appointments. The father of Shri Vikram Kumar Shrivastava had died on 28.08.2018. The father of Shri Chandan Kumar Singh had died on 23.02.2012, which was well before the policy dated 04.01.2016 was introduced.
The Court then considered how the 04.01.2016 policy should be applied. It observed that the 3% quota policy did not have retrospective effect. In other words, it could not be applied backwards in time to cover deaths and claims that arose before 04.01.2016.
On that basis, the Court held that the cases of Shri Vikram Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Chandan Kumar Singh could not be counted against the 3% quota introduced by the 04.01.2016 policy. The appointments of those two persons were to be considered under the regime or policy that existed prior to 04.01.2016, because their entitlement arose under earlier circumstances.
The Court then turned to the petitioner’s situation. His mother died on 29.01.2016, that is, after the 04.01.2016 policy came into force. His application dated 10.03.2016 was therefore squarely governed by this new policy, which earmarked 3% of the cadre strength for compassionate appointments.
In this light, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim should be considered under the 04.01.2016 policy. The quota under this policy was meant to operate for deaths and applications arising on or after 04.01.2016. The Court clarified that the 3% quota “would operate from 04.01.2016, the date of introduction of policy” and would apply to persons who claim compassionate appointment from that date onwards.
Because the two appointments of Shri Vikram Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Chandan Kumar Singh were not to be treated as appointments under the 3% quota policy of 04.01.2016, those appointments could not be used as a reason to deny the petitioner a post under that quota.
On this reasoning, the Court held that, “in the light of these facts and circumstance, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment.”
To further support its interpretation about which policy applies to a claim for compassionate appointment, the Court relied on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Ashish Awashthi, Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021, heard along with The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Baalendu Yadav, Civil Appeal No. 6904 of 2021.
The Supreme Court in Ashish Awashthi considered a situation where a work-charge employee died on 08.10.2015. At that time, the policy dated 29.09.2014 allowed only a compensatory amount and not compassionate appointment. Later, a new circular dated 31.08.2016 extended compassionate appointment to dependents of work-charge employees.
The Division Bench of the High Court in that case had ordered that the later 2016 circular be applied and that the dependent be considered for compassionate appointment. However, the Supreme Court reversed that view.
The Supreme Court held that, as per the settled legal position, only the policy in force on the date of death of the employee is relevant for deciding a claim for compassionate appointment, not a subsequent policy. It specifically referred to its earlier decisions in Indian Bank and Ors. vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496, where the same principle was affirmed.
The Patna High Court extracted paragraphs 4 and 4.1 of the Supreme Court judgment. These paragraphs firmly state that a compassionate appointment claim must be decided on the basis of the scheme or policy that was in force when the employee died, and that later amendments cannot be relied upon to create a fresh right.
Building on this principle, the Patna High Court framed the rule for the present case slightly differently, focused on the date of application. It stated that, for claiming compassionate appointment, “whatever the policy decision existing as on the date of application is to be invoked” for determining entitlement, and not any amended or later policy.
Applying this, the Court held that the claims of Shri Vikram Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Chandan Kumar Singh had to be tested against the policy that applied before 04.01.2016, and thus their appointments could not be said to exhaust the 3% quota created by the 04.01.2016 policy.
The Court then concluded that the 3% quota must be applied to those persons who claim compassionate appointment from 04.01.2016 onwards, such as the present petitioner. Hence, the petitioner’s claim fell squarely within this quota, and he could not be denied appointment on the ground that the quota had already been filled.
In its operative direction, the Court ordered the concerned respondent to re-examine the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in light of the Court’s observations. It further directed that the authorities “proceed to appoint petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.”
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for families of deceased court employees in Bihar and similar institutions. It clarifies that when a new compassionate appointment quota is introduced, earlier pending or unrelated cases cannot be used to block eligible dependents who fall under the new policy.
The ruling ensures that a quota like 3% is actually available to those whose claims arise after the policy comes into force, and cannot be reduced by adjusting earlier claims against it. It thus protects dependents from losing their chance due to administrative interpretation of numbers and dates.
The decision also reinforces that authorities must look carefully at the policy date, the date of death, and the date of application, and then apply the correct policy. They cannot cite later or earlier policies selectively to deny relief.
For dependents in similar situations, the judgment shows that unexplained delay or refusal in considering a compassionate appointment can be challenged, and the High Court can direct reconsideration and appointment within a fixed time frame.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment could be rejected on the ground that the 3% quota under the policy dated 04.01.2016 had already been exhausted by earlier appointments.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the appointments of Shri Vikram Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Chandan Kumar Singh were not to be counted against the 3% quota introduced on 04.01.2016, as their cases were governed by the policy prior to that date. The petitioner, whose mother died on 29.01.2016 and who applied on 10.03.2016, was entitled to consideration and appointment under the 04.01.2016 policy. - Issue: Which policy or scheme should be applied while deciding claims for compassionate appointment.
Answer: The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions, held that the policy existing at the relevant time must be applied—here stated as the policy existing on the date of application—and not any subsequent amended policy. Earlier cases have held that the policy on the date of death of the employee is determinative.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Ashish Awashthi, Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021.
- The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Baalendu Yadav, Civil Appeal No. 6904 of 2021.
- Indian Bank and Ors. vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729.
- State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 123 of 2021
Case Title: Srawan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 30.11.2021
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 412
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rabi Bhushan, Advocate; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate; Ms. Rakhi Kumari, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5 (District and Sessions Judge, Kishanganj): Mr. Piyush Kumar Lal, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition seeking mandamus for compassionate appointment against a Class IV post in Civil Courts, Kishanganj.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTIzIzIwMjEjMSNO-LgCKwy0iDqI=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
