In The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ravi Shankar Kumar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench f Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 33-page long judgement dated May13, 2026, wherein, it concluded:".....this Court, with utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment/order suffers from patent illegality and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra). Accordingly, the judgment/order dated 28.02.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12607 of 2014 is hereby set aside. Consequently,the writ petition stands dismissed. The present Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed."
The judgement was authored by Justice Kumar set aside the judgement by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma. Justice Kumar relied on Supreme Court's 16-page long judgment dated November 30, 2018, in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad [(2019) 13 SCC 250 and 39-page long judgement dated October 17, 2019 in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Devendra Sharma [(2020) 15 SCC 466. The former was delivered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Court and authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer. The latter was delivered by a Division Bench of the Court and authored by Justice Hemant Gupta. Justice Kumar had relied on these judgements in his 21-page long judgement dated June 19, 2025 in Mulmul Devi vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025) as well but to set aside the order dated August 4, 2022 passed by the Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Supaul, the respondent no.3. He had concluded: "35. This Court directs the concerned respondent(s) to ensure payment of all the admissible death-cum-retiral/outstanding dues to the petitioner...." The six respondents were: The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Director in Chief (Nursing), Health Services, Bihar, The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Supaul, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Basantpur, Supaul, District Treasury Officer Supaul and Accountant General, Bihar.The writ petition was allowed to the indicated extent.
In the present LPA, Justice Kumar as part of the Division Bench grappled with following five issues and concluded: (i) As to whether the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra) and Devendra Sharma (supra) would be applicable to the case of the present writ petitioner, particularly when neither the petitioner nor his father was a party to the said proceedings? The law laid down by the Supreme Court "in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra) shall squarely apply to the case of the present writ petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that neither the writ petitioner nor his deceased father was a party to the aforesaid cases."
(ii) Whether the services of the petitioner’s father, who died in harness on April 15, 2012, can be declared “illegal” posthumously, without affording him an opportunity to contest such findings? Once the Division Bench of the High Court found that the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case, and further that the services of the petitioner’s father had already been categorized as “illegal” during his lifetime, based upon the report of the Committee, the finding of which was duly accepted in the above noted cases, "this Court finds no difficulty in reaffirming and accepting such finding of illegal appointment in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even, if it is after the death of the petitioner’s father, in view of the settled position of law that when death occurs after conclusion of inquiry or the matter is pending, either for final order or appellate stage, there can be no abatement of proceeding."
(iii) Whether, the State and its authorities having extended all consequential service benefits, including salary and death-cum-retiral dues to the petitioner’s father, it is open to them at this stage to treat his appointment as illegal? Irrespective of the fact that the petitioner’s father had been granted consequential service benefits, including salary and death-cum-retiral dues during the pendency of the proceedings, "there exists no legal impediment even at this stage in treating the very appointment as illegal in terms of the law laid down in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra)."
(iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the State is legally justified in declining to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds? The Division Bench judgement reads: "....the State is legally justified in declining to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground."
(v) Whether the petitioner’s claim of parity with similarly situated persons, such as Munna Kumar, can be denied without any justifiable basis? The judgement reads: "Once this Court has already concluded and held that the appointment of the petitioner’s father was illegal in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as noticed hereinabove, the petitioner’s claim of parity with Munna Kumar and others, who are stated to have been granted compassionate appointment, is wholly untenable both in law and on facts.
The intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (LPA), was directed against the order dated February 28, 2025 passed by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, the Single Judge had delivered a 12-page long judgement dated February 28, 2025, wherein, he allowed the writ petition. He set aside the memo dated March 27, 2014 and memo dated February 23, 2023 issued by Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur and directed him and District Magistrate, Bhagalpur cum chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bhagalpur "to take a fresh decision in accordance with law for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, considering all the aforesaid facts within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order and take the matter to a logical conclusion considering his father to be in service on the date of his death."
Earlier, in Ravi Shankar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma had delivered a 12-page long judgement dated February 28, 2025, wherein, he allowed the writ petition. He set aside the memo dated March 27, 2014 and memo dated February 23, 2023 issued by Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur and directed him and District Magistrate, Bhagalpur cum chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bhagalpur "to take a fresh decision in accordance with law for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, considering all the aforesaid facts within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order and take the matter to a logical conclusion considering his father to be in service on the date of his death."
The other four respondents were: Director in Chief Health Services, Bihar, Patna, Director, Health Services, Bihar, Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur and District Magistrate, Bhagalpur cum chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bhagalpur.
The writ petition was filed for quashing the memo dated March 27, 2014 issued under the signature of Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur, the Respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner was informed that his application for compassionate appointment will be considered after disposal of LPA and for quashing the memo dated March 23, 2023 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 4 by which the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the service of the father of the petitioner was not valid.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the father of the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis on March 28, 1987. Thereafter, vide memo dated March 29, 1990, the service of the father of the petitioner was absorbed to the post of peon in the scale of 775-1025 with effect from the date of joining and after more than 12 years from his appointment, the father of the petitioner has received a letter dated May 29, 1999 by which the father of the petitioner was informed that his appointment is prima facie irregular and father of the petitioner was restrained from work and his salary was also stopped by the authority concerned. The father of the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 6541 of 1999 and during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the father of the petitioner was terminated from the service with effect from May 30, 1999 after the holding that his joining was irregular. The same was challenged by the father of the petitioner in the writ petition of 1999 and the same was heard along with other similar matters on February 26, 2004 and it was held that the petitioners came to the High Court seeking their salary but during the pendency they were terminated from service and the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are given liberty to take appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum challenging the order of termination. The father of the petitioner had again filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 5114 of 2004 for quashing the order dated September 21, 1999 whereby he was terminated from service with effect from May 30, 1999 and the same was heard along with other similar cases and by common order dated June 26, 2006 passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases, it was disposed of with direction to the authority, namely, Health Department, Government of Bihar to reconsider the cases of all the affected employees in light of the Constitution Bench Judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(3) PLJR 386 then after more than two year from the order dated June 26, 2006 passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases, an enquiry report was communicated to the father of the petitioner by which his appointment was held illegal by the enquiry committee.
The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that before issuing enquiry report with respect to father of the petitioner, neither the father of the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing nor any notice to the show cause was issued to him by the enquiry committee. Enquiry committee had issued the enquiry report in clear violation of principle of natural justice, equity and fair. Then father of the petitioner had again filed CWJC No. 8225 of 2009 for quashing the enquiry report with respect to him whereby appointment was held illegal and further for directing the respondent authority to reinstate him on the post on which he was working earlier before termination from service with all the salary and other consequential benefits. The writ petition was also heard along with other similar cases and finally vide order dated October 6, 2009 the imugned enquiry report as well as termination order was quahsed and the concerned authorities were directed to reinstate the petitioners on the post on which they were working before the termination with all the consequential benefits. The order dated October 6, 2009 passed in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases was affirmed upto the Supreme Court. The father of the petitioner had filed a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 4848 of 2010 for initiating contempt of court proceeding against concerned authority for violation of order dated October 6, 2009 passed in CWJC No. 8225 of 2009. During the pendency of the contempt petition, an order was issued vide memo dated January 30, 2012 under the signature of the Respondent No. 4 by which father of the petitioner has been reinstated on the post on which he was working. Soon thereafter, the father of the petitioner died in harness on April 15, 2012 due to illness while working as Darban in the Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur. The entire dues salary due to the father of the petitioner from the date of termination until his reinstatement in terms of the order dated October 6, 2009 passed in CWJC No. 8225 of 2009 was paid to the petitioner vide order dated December 14, 2022.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted the High Court that the father of the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the direction of the High Court on 30.01.2012 and while he was working, he died in harness on April 15, 2012 due to illness which suggests that father of the petitioner was in service on the date of his death. So the petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and apart from that the similarly situated person, namely, Munna Kumar whose case was considered by the authority concerned and Munna Kumar was appointed on the basis of compassionate ground by the authority concerned and in the present case the authority has intentionally not considered the case of the petitioner and the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by referring some orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 as well as Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 by the Supreme Court in which neither the petitioner nor his late father was a party and apart from that from perusal of the order dated 11.01.2024 passed in MJC No. 47972 of 2018, the High Court had held that the aforesaid orders passed by the Supreme Court are in personam and not in rem.
Justice Verma had observed that on the date of death, the father of the petitioner was in service and apart from that the state authority had paid all the retirement cum death benefits to the petitioner. On "one hand the state has admitted that his father was in service and on other hand, the state has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his father was not in service." The judgement recorded that apart from that the letter no. 1323 dated February 23, 2023 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, refers some orders of the Supreme Court in which neither the petitioner nor his late father was a party and apart from that the order passed in MJC No. 47972 of 2018, it is crystal clear that the High Court has held that the aforesaid orders passed by the Supreme Court are in personam and not in rem.
Now the Division Bench has reversed the judgement by Justice Verma. A comparison between judgement dated June 19, 2025 by Justice Kumar as Single Judge and the judgement dated February 28, 2025 by Justice Verma as Single Judge is likely to offer fruitful insight.
No comments:
Post a Comment