In Gautam Kumar vs.The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Nani Tagia delivered a 9-page long judgment dated August 25, 2025. This is the 26th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice wherein, he concluded:"no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10199 of 2018." It was uploaded on teh website of the High Court on August 28, 2025, on the day of the farewell of Justice Pancholi. The appeal was filed under Clause-X of Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 against judgment dated February 13, 2024 passed by the Single Judge in CWJC No. 10199 of 2018, whereby the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant/original writ petitioner.
In Gautam Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge had passed a 5-page long judgement dated February 13, 2024 wherein he drew on the paragraph-48 of decision by the full bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Dr. Ravi Ranjan in Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2018(2) PLJR 951 (FB). The judgement was authored by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad.
The counsel of the petitioner had referred to the ratio laid down in this decision of the full bench of the court. It reads: “48. In terms of the clarification offered by the department, on receipt of information that other siblings of the applicant are in employment, the competent authority would be required to objectively look into the nature of the employment and the resources being generated by the employed sibling from such employment. On an objective consideration where it is found that other sibling of the applicant is gainfully employed in such an employment from which he/she is in a position and has capacity to provide sustenance/maintenance to the other dependents, the application for appointment on compassionate ground would not fit in the scheme in terms of the clarification at Annexure-'A' referred above but where it is found that the employment of the other sibling is of such a nature that it is not generating resources so as to make him able to provide both ends meet, for sustenance/maintenance to the other dependents of the deceased government employee and despite gainful employment of one of the dependents but because of his poor income from such employment he is not in a position to provide two ends meet to the other dependents, therefore they are on the verge of starvation, destitution and penury, the authorities of the State would be liable to consider the application of other dependent for appointment on compassionate ground. No other plea in any form whatsoever would be a ground to provide the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment.”
Referring to paragraph 48, Dr. Anshuman concluded: ''5. No such plea has ever been raised by the petitioner at any early occasion for which ratio has been laid in para-48 of this Full Bench decision, this Court finds that the petitioner has no case as in Annexure-7. The only plea has been taken that the brother who is in employment is living separately. 6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.''
The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner had contended that the father of the appellant/original petitioner was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the district of Aurangabad and while he was on duty, he died on May 20, 2013. It was also submitted that the appellant/original petitioner, son of the deceased employee, submitted an application for getting appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme of the State Government, on December 9, 2013. It was also contended that the application was kept pending by the respondent authorities and, ultimately, the District Compassionate Committee, Aurangabad recommended the name of the appellant/original petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground on September 19, 2014. The counsel referred the minutes of the meeting of the committee. The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner submitted that pursuant to the recommendation made by the committee, the petitioner was asked to report to the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad and thereafter the appellant/original petitioner went to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. However, Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad informed the appellant/original petitioner that there was no vacancy under the fixed quota of appointment on compassionate ground and he was asked to appear at Police Centre, Aurangabad along with all the required documents for necessary physical test for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Sepoy. It was also submitted that thereafter, his appointment was kept pending vide order dated February 27, 2017. The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner submitted that ultimately vide order dated February 7, 2018, the appellant/original writ petitioner was informed that he cannot be considered for his appointment on compassionate ground as his brother was already in government service and employed as a Driver in Railways since April 23, 2014. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the respondent authority.
The Singe Judge vide impugned judgment dated February 13, 2024 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/original petitioner relying upon the decision of Full Bench in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. the State of Bihar reported in 2018(2) PLJR 951 (FB). The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner assailed the judgment on the ground that on the date of application submitted by the appellant/ original petitioner, his brother was not in service and his brother was appointed as a Driver in Railways only on April 23, 2014. It was also submitted that even the income of the brother of the appellant/original petitioner was not sufficient to maintain the entire family. He also submitted that his brother was residing separately and, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the order passed by the concerned respondent authority with a direction to respondent authorities to appoint appellant/original petitioner on compassionate ground. Thus, counsel urged that the impugned judgment be set aside and appropriate order be passed.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/State opposed the appeal. He submitted that at the time of the recommendation made by the concerned committee on September 19, 2014, the committee was not aware about the appointment of the brother of appellant/original petitioner on the post of Driver in Railways on April 23, 2024. When this aspect was noticed by the respondent authorities, the order came to be passed by the respondent authority, as the brother of appellant/ original petitioner got the appointment and was gainfully employed and, therefore, as per the policy of the respondents/State, the appellant/original petitioner was not entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the respondent authority has rightly passed the order, rejecting the claim of the appellant/original petitioner. It was submitted that the Single Judge did not commit any error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant) and, therefore, the High Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge.
Justice Pancholi observed: In the present case, there are certain undisputed facts i.e., the father of the appellant/original petitioner died on 20th May, 2013. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 09.12.2013 for getting appointment on compassionate ground. It was true that the application of the appellant/original petitioner was kept pending for some time and thereafter the concerned committee, in its meeting, recommended that the petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground. The said commendation was made on 1Sep9.09.2014. It was also not in dispute that in the meantime, the brother of the appellant/original petitioner was gainfully employed on 23.04.2014. He was appointed as a Driver in Railways. From the record, it appears that the concerned committee, which made the aforesaid recommendation on 19.09.2014, was not aware about the gainful employment of the brother of the appellant/original petitioner and, therefore, the aforesaid recommendation was made. However, the fact remains that the brother of the petitioner has been gainfully employed on 23.04.2014, i.e., prior to the recommendation of the concerned committee. 9. At this stage, we would like to refer the policy of the State Govt. for appointment of the dependents of the deceased employee on compassionate ground.
Justice Pancholi referred to paragraph 45 and 49 of the decision render by the full bench of the High in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. the State of Bihar. It reads: “45. A perusal of Clause (d) of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 in CWJC No.17143 of 2016 would show that the clarification offered by the General Administration Department clearly states that where any of the dependents of a deceased government servant is„ gainfully employed‟ then irrespective of the fact whether he lives together or separate from other dependents, the benefit of compassionate appointment would not be available to any other dependents of the deceased government servant. I am of the considered opinion that the clarification offered by the Department being a part of the policy decision governing the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground is based on judicial pronouncement of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar (supra) and it is fully in consonance with the object of compassionate appointment, it is also in tune with the views expressed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions some of them I have referred herein above. It is also reasonable one and passes the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The clarification vide Clause (d) of Annexure-''A‟ to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 cannot be found fault with on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
In Vishal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(2) PLJR 453, upon hearing the appeal preferred against the order dated August 18, 2003 in Vishal Kumar vs. State of Bihar CWJC. No. 6712 of 2003, the appellant on the death of his father applied for job as a compassionate appointment. The claim was rejected on May 21, 2003 by the District Compassionate Committee of which the Collector is the Chairman. The matter related to seeking a job in the Rural Engineering Organization Department. The job was denied by the Committee on the ground that the elder brother of the appellant had been gainfully employed in the State Bank of India. The contention of the appellant was that his brother and father were separate and evidence was offered, to the effect. The High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi S. Dhavan and Justice Shashank Kumar Singh observed: ''The court is afraid, this logic of law will not apply for if there will be rivalry within the family as in the present case between the father and the son or between siblings, a job can be offered on the principle of compassionate appointment only to one person and when one is gainfully employed, there is no obligation to offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry employment.'' The Division had upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
The relevant paragraph of the judgement in Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. the State of Bihar was cited by Justice Pancholi. It reads: ''49. In my opinion the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar (supra) followed by learned Writ Court in the case of Mahabir Paswan (supra) and Jay Prakash Choudhary (supra) are laying down the correct law. In none of these writ applications, the petitioners have pleaded that their other siblings are in such an employment by which they are unable to get sufficient money so as to provide the both ends meet to these petitioners, therefore we find no error in the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner(s) on the ground that their other siblings are in employment. I would, therefore approve the judgment dated 22.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.10236 of 2013 which has followed the judgment of the Hon‟ble Division Bench in the case of Vishal Kumar (supra)”. He concluded: ''11. Keeping in view the aforesaid policy of the State Government and the clarification made by the Government as well as the decision rendered by the Full Bench in Kumar Mallick (supra), if the facts of the present case are examined, we are of the view that when the brother of the appellant/original petitioner was gainfully employed on 23.04.2014, no error has been committed by the respondent authority while rejecting the claim of the appellant/original petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. Similarly, learned Single Judge has also not committed any error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10199 of 2018. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.'' Thus, Justice Pancholi upheld the judgement by Dr. Anshuman.
No comments:
Post a Comment