Case Background
The petitioner’s father was employed with the Central Water Commission at Tadong, Gangtok in the State of Sikkim. He died in harness on 15.01.2013 while still serving in that post.
After his father’s death, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the writ petition, his application was filed on 12.02.2013. He claims to have submitted all documents as and when asked by the department.
For several years, the petitioner did not receive any appointment letter or clear decision from the department. Finally, through his lawyer, he sent a legal notice on 05.12.2017 demanding a decision on his request for compassionate appointment.
The Central Water Commission responded by letter dated 14.12.2017, sent through the Superintending Engineer. In this reply, the department clearly stated that they were unable to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The reason given was that compassionate appointments were limited to 5% of vacancies, which in that period came to one post. That sole post had already been given to another candidate, one Vimal Sharma, on compassionate grounds. The letter added that if further appointments were made in future, the petitioner would be informed.
The petitioner thereafter continued to make representations to the department. The last representation referred to in the judgment is dated 25.05.2023. According to the petitioner, he received only oral assurances and no fresh written decision.
Finally, in 2023, more than ten years after his father’s death and more than six years after the department’s written refusal, the petitioner filed the present Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18505 of 2023 before the Patna High Court. He sought a direction to the Union of India and the concerned officers of the Central Water Commission to appoint him on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter came up before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy of the Patna High Court on 31.03.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. No one appeared for the respondents, but their stand was on record through documents annexed to the writ petition.
The core prayer of the petitioner was for a direction to the authorities to provide him a job on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father in service. The Court first noted the key dates: the father’s death on 15.01.2013, the application for compassionate appointment on 12.02.2013, the reply of refusal dated 14.12.2017, and the filing of the writ petition in 2023.
The Court recorded that the department had considered the petitioner’s request. The Superintending Engineer of the Central Water Commission had issued the letter dated 14.12.2017, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This letter explained why the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate grounds.
According to that letter, as per the applicable policy, only 5% of the total vacancies could be filled by way of compassionate appointment. In the relevant period, this limit of 5% translated into only one available post for compassionate appointment. That single post had already been given to another eligible applicant, Vimal Sharma. Therefore, no further vacancy remained in the 5% quota to accommodate the petitioner.
The Court observed that this position was clearly communicated to the petitioner’s counsel in writing on 14.12.2017. Despite this, the petitioner did not immediately challenge the decision. Instead, he “sat over the matter” and approached the Court only in the year 2023.
The Court highlighted that by the time the writ petition was filed, more than ten years had passed since the death of the employee and over six years had passed since the department had formally declined the request for compassionate appointment. The Court considered whether this long delay could be ignored, especially when the scheme of compassionate appointment is meant for immediate financial relief.
To understand the law on compassionate appointment, the Court referred to leading decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. First, it cited the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over a sudden crisis caused by the death of the earning member. It is not a means to provide a public job to a family member as a matter of right or to give the same post that the deceased held. The relief is exceptional and limited, targeted at urgent need.
The Court then referred to another Supreme Court decision, Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2022) 15 SCC 536. In that judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that merely filing representations to the authorities does not extend the period within which a person must approach the Court. A litigant is required to come to Court within a “reasonable time.” If he delays too long, the Court may decline relief even if representations were kept pending.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court examined whether the petitioner had explained the delay in filing the writ petition and whether, in spite of such delay, relief could still be granted.
The Court found that there was no satisfactory explanation for why the petitioner waited so many years after receiving the clear refusal in 2017. The fact that he had continued to give representations, including the last one dated 25.05.2023, could not help him, in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling that representations do not keep extending time indefinitely.
The Court further looked at the departmental decision itself. It noted that the refusal was based on a policy limiting compassionate appointments to 5% of vacancies. Because that small quota was already exhausted by the appointment of one candidate, there was no remaining vacancy for the petitioner. On the materials available, the Court found “no error/illegality” in the reasons given in the letter dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure-5).
Thus, even on merits, apart from the question of delay, the Court held that the department’s stand was consistent with its policy and with the limited nature of compassionate appointment as recognised by the Supreme Court. The scheme cannot be stretched beyond its limits simply because a family member continues to seek employment for many years after the death.
In conclusion, the Court held that:
(i) the petitioner had approached the Court after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, far beyond a reasonable time; and
(ii) there was no illegality in the decision of the Central Water Commission refusing compassionate appointment due to exhaustion of the 5% quota.
On these findings, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no merit in the application.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has practical importance for families seeking compassionate appointment after the death of a government employee. It underlines that such employment is not a guaranteed right but a limited relief to handle the immediate financial shock of the death.
The Court’s reasoning shows that if a department has a clear policy restricting compassionate appointments to a small percentage of vacancies, and that quota is already filled, a later claim may not succeed. Courts will not ordinarily disturb such policy decisions in the absence of illegality.
Further, the judgment sends a clear message about delay. If a family receives a written refusal and waits for years before going to Court, merely filing repeated representations will not “keep the case alive.” Courts expect people to act within a reasonable time.
For dependants of deceased employees, the decision emphasises two key points: apply quickly and, if the claim is rejected, challenge it promptly if they wish to contest it. Otherwise, even a genuine hardship may not receive judicial relief.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds despite the department’s refusal based on the 5% quota and the long delay in approaching the Court.
Answer: No. The Court held that the refusal was in line with the policy limiting compassionate appointments to 5% of vacancies and that the petitioner approached the Court after an unreasonable delay of several years without sufficient explanation. - Issue: Whether repeated representations after rejection could extend the time for approaching the Court in a compassionate appointment matter.
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that filing representations does not extend limitation; a person must approach the Court within a reasonable time from the original rejection.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 – cited for the principle that compassionate appointment is meant only to help the family tide over sudden financial crisis and is not a matter of right.
- Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2022) 15 SCC 536 – cited for the principle that filing representations does not extend the period of limitation and that a person must approach the Court within a reasonable time.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18505 of 2023
Case Title: Ranjit Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Citation: 2026(3) PLJR 205
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate. For the respondents – None appeared.
Nature of the case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction seeking direction for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Date of Judgment: 31.03.2026
Link to 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.
