Case Background
The case arose from the death of a Grade-IV employee working in the Department of Posts at the General Post Office, Patna. He died in harness on 22.04.2011 while still in service.
After his death, his widow, petitioner no. 1, applied on 27.10.2011 before the Chief Post Master General, G.P.O., Patna. She sought appointment for her son, petitioner no. 2, on compassionate grounds in the postal department.
The department considered this request and, by letter dated 27.04.2013, rejected the claim for compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2. The petitioners state that this rejection letter did not give any reasons.
According to the petitioners, from 27.04.2013 onwards they kept approaching the postal authorities but did not get any relief. Ultimately, in 2025, they filed Original Application No. 050/00511/2025 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, challenging the rejection.
On 21.07.2025, the Central Administrative Tribunal (referred to as the Ld. C.A.T.) dismissed their original application. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners moved the Patna High Court under its writ jurisdiction in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15391 of 2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava, heard the matter. The oral judgment was delivered on 25.11.2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.
The petitioners’ side argued that the postal department’s letter dated 27.04.2013, by which their claim for compassionate appointment was turned down, was illegal. Their core grievance was that the department had not mentioned any reason for rejection in that letter.
Based on this, the petitioners contended that petitioner no. 2 deserved to be given compassionate appointment. They wanted the High Court to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision and direct the authorities to provide such employment.
On the other hand, counsel for the Union of India and the departmental authorities raised a strong preliminary objection about limitation. They relied on Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Under Section 21, the Tribunal cannot admit an application if it is filed after one year from the date of the final order challenged, unless the statute permits and delay is properly condoned. Here, the final order by the postal authorities was passed on 27.04.2013, but the Original Application before the Tribunal was filed only in 2025.
This meant there was a delay of about 12 years in approaching the Tribunal. The respondents argued that such an extraordinary delay made the O.A. clearly barred by limitation, and therefore the Tribunal had rightly dismissed it.
The High Court carefully examined the dates. It noted that the employee died on 22.04.2011. The request for compassionate appointment was made on 27.10.2011. That request was rejected by order dated 27.04.2013. Yet the petitioners approached the Tribunal only in 2025.
The Court described the Original Application as “belatedly” filed and treated the long gap very seriously. It went on to discuss the broader principle of delay and laches while invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Bench stressed that a Constitutional Court, when using its extraordinary and equitable powers under writ jurisdiction, must also look at whether the person coming to court has slept over their rights. If an aggrieved person approaches the court “without adequate reason” after a long delay, at his or her own leisure, the writ court is not required to grant indulgence.
The Court made it clear that, in such circumstances, on the ground of delay and laches alone, the writ petition can and ought to be rejected at the very threshold.
To support this view, the Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions on delay and laches. The judgments cited were:
(i) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewarage Board & Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108.
(ii) State of Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6627.
(iii) C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology & Mining and Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 264.
(iv) State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri & Others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006.
(v) State of Tamil Nadu vs. Seshachalam, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 137.
After dealing with limitation and delay, the Patna High Court also examined the case on merits, especially the law on compassionate appointment.
The Bench noted that compassionate appointment exists to help a family in distress soon after the death of a government employee who was the sole breadwinner. It is meant to provide immediate financial support, not to keep a job reserved for a dependent indefinitely.
The Court pointed out that if applications for compassionate appointment are entertained after many years, several problems can arise. Other families facing sudden financial hardship at the time of death may be deprived of immediate relief because posts would be blocked by old claims.
For this principle, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. The State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138. Paragraph 6 of that judgment was reproduced, where the Supreme Court clearly held that:
Compassionate employment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period specified in the rules. It is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. Its object is to help the family overcome the financial crisis at the time of death of the sole breadwinner. Therefore, it cannot be claimed or offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
Applying this principle, the Patna High Court observed that in the present case about 14 years had passed from the death of the employee (22.04.2011) till the High Court’s consideration in 2025. Granting compassionate appointment after such a long gap would be contrary to the very object of the scheme.
The Court concluded that, even on merits, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. Compassionate appointment could not be claimed as a matter of right after so many years, and the financial crisis supposed to be addressed by such appointment would no longer be immediate.
Thus, there were two independent grounds against the petitioners:
First, their Original Application before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, having been filed about 12 years after the rejection order dated 27.04.2013.
Second, the very claim for compassionate appointment made after about 14 years from the death of the employee ran against the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and the basic purpose of compassionate appointment.
In view of these reasons, the Court held that there was no illegality in the Tribunal’s order dated 21.07.2025. It found the writ petition “sans any merit” and dismissed it.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for families of deceased government employees, especially in Bihar, who seek compassionate appointment long after the death.
The Patna High Court has clearly signalled that such claims must be made and pursued promptly. Courts will not normally help those who approach legal forums after many years without proper explanation.
The ruling reinforces that compassionate appointment is meant to handle immediate financial crisis. It is not a lifetime right that can be invoked at any convenient time.
For legal practitioners and affected families, the judgment shows that challenging a rejection order after a long delay is risky. It may be thrown out on limitation and laches alone, even before the court looks into whether the department’s reasons were correct.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether an Original Application filed in 2025 challenging a rejection order dated 27.04.2013 for compassionate appointment was within limitation and fit to be entertained.
Answer: No. The Court held that under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the O.A. was clearly time-barred, having been filed after about 12 years. -
Issue: Whether compassionate appointment could be directed to be granted to the dependent of a deceased employee about 14 years after the employee’s death.
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that compassionate appointment is only to meet immediate financial crisis and cannot be claimed as of right after such a long lapse of time. -
Issue: Whether the Patna High Court should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 21.07.2025 dismissing the Original Application.
Answer: No. The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewarage Board & Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108.
- State of Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., 2013 AIR SCW 6627.
- C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology & Mining and Anr., AIR 2009 SC 264.
- State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri & Others, AIR 2016 SC 3006.
- State of Tamil Nadu vs. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137.
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. The State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15391 of 2025
Case Title: Radha Devi & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 11
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava
Date of Judgment: 25.11.2025
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rishabh Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. Rajen Sahay, SCGS, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in service matter relating to compassionate appointment.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
