Patna High Court's Division Bench upholds judgement of 2023 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, petitioner's counsels disregarded Full Bench judgment based on Supreme Court's judgement

In Rajeev Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 6-page long judgement dated September 22, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 8. We are of the view that the appeal apart from being without merit is also barred by delay of 771 days. The appeal is dismissed both on merits and on delay." The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Rao. This is his 9th judgement as Chief Justice Patna High Court. The Division Bench recorded that he writ petition before the learned Single Judge was second round of litigation by the petitioner. He had earlier approached the High Court in CWJC No. 4156 of 2019, which was disposed on August 8, 2019. 

 In his 5-page long impeccable judgement dated May 3, 2023, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad had concluded:"This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly." 

Justice Prasad had recorded that the "counsel for the petitioner is aware of the Hon’ble Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 951 wherein this Court has considered the government circular/guidelines with regard to the appointment on compassionate ground in a case where the other sibling of the applicant is gainfully employed." This is because drawing on Supreme Court's judgement, he noted that the writ Court has to be conscious of the judicial pronouncements of the Court wherein it has been repeatedly held that a Court has no power to ignore a provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar 1994 AIR 2148 has held:“the Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, it should never be done”

Upholding Justice Prasad's judgement, Chief Justice Rao observed:"5. A perusal of the conclusion drawn by the Full Bench, it is clear that pursuant to a public policy inasmuch as where any of the dependents of the deceased Government servant is gainfully employed, no other dependent would be entitled to get the benefit of the compassionate appointment. 6. A reference is also made that the Government has come out with a policy that the dependent who is gainfully employed and living separately from other dependents cannot be a reason to provide appointment. That is, irrespective of that whether employed one lives together or separately, the other dependents would not get the benefit of compassion. 7. If the above being the position and there is no denial to the fact that the eldest son of the deceased employee i.e., the sibling of the petitioner is employed in Andhra Bank, the said policy will come into play. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted."