AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 18-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs :-
“I. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order/decision dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Respondent District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Patna vide Memo no.
575 dated 25.08.2024 (Annexure P/5) issued under the signature of the Respondent Authorities whereby and whereunder the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment in Group-D category has been rejected on account of petitioner's younger brother being gainfully employed as a Lipik (Clerk) in the service of the state government. Whereas the brother of the petitioner is a contractual employee in the office of the Collector Darbhanga and partition has been taken place between the two brothers in the year 2023 vide partition deed dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure P/6). Since then petitioner is living separately from his brother.
II. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS for commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities particularly the Respondent No.-3 to select and appoint the petitioner in Group-D category on compassionate ground as he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground after death of his father, namely, Late Ram Naresh Paswan, who died in harness on 11.04.2024 while working as a Clerk in the office of Circle Officer, Block Hayaghat, Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga
III. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, Commanding and directing the respondent no.-3 to appoint the petitioner in place of his deceased father on the compassionate ground for the reason that the petitioner is having separate mess from his brother since the partition that took place in the year 2023 (Annexure P/6)
IV. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions for which the petitioners would be entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The case of the petitioner in brief is that the father of the petitioner who was working on the post of clerk in the office of the Collector, Darbhanga having died in harness on 11.4.2024, the petitioner filed an application for his appointment on compassionate ground which came to be rejected by the order impugned passed by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 25.8.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a reading of the order impugned it would transpire that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application is that as per the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Hayaghat, the salary slip of the brother of the petitioner was obtained and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.26,731/- and thus an annual income of Rs.3,20,772/-. In addition to the above, the mother of the petitioner was getting family pension of Rs.18,050/- and thus an annual income of Rs.2,16,600/-.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents committed an error in considering the honorarium being received by his elder brother as salary, as his elder brother is working on a contractual post. Further the said brother had partitioned from the family during the lifetime of the petitioner’s father itself and has been living separately. In support of the contention, deed of partition signed by all the members of the family has been brought on record as Annexure-P/6 to the writ application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents also committed an error in taking into consideration the family pension being received by the petitioner’s mother, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.; (2005) 10 SCC 289. It is submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Avnish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (order dated 1.10.2024 in CWJC no.13303 of 2022) has observed that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2018 (2) PLJR 951, the General Administration Department was under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner objectively to find out as to whether the employment of the elder son of the deceased employee is sufficient to maintain the entire family of the deceased and whether the elder son is actually maintaining his widow mother, brother and other members of the family. In these circumstances it is submitted that the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejecting the petitioner’s application be set aside, the writ application be allowed and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.
The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Referring to the counter affidavit it is submitted by learned counsel that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered in accordance with law and as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra). There is no illegality in the order, no merit in the writ application and as such the same be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The relevant facts in brief are that the application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground in the place of his deceased father came to be rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Patna on 25.8.2025 mainly on the grounds i.e. (i) the elder brother of the petitioner was gainfully employed earning a salary of Rs.26,731/-per month and an annual income of Rs.3,20,772/- and (ii) the mother of the petitioner was receiving monthly family pension of Rs.18,050/-, the total annual income being Rs.2,16,600/-. In view of this income, the Circle Officer submitted a report that Rs.5,37,372/- being the total annual income of the family was sufficient for maintenance of the family. As such, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejected the petitioner’s application.
So far as the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment dated 1.10.2024 passed in CWJC no.13303 of 2022 is concerned, it may be observed that in paragraph no.47 of the judgment in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra) a Full Bench of this Court has clearly observed therein that any argument that the dependent in employment is not willing to provide sustenance/maintenance to other dependents or that the employed one is living separately is beyond the scope and ambit of consideration of the authorities as also of this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court cannot go into enquiring the correctness of the facts so pleaded. Paragraph no.47 of the judgment in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra) is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-
“47.So far as the clarification that ‘gainfully employed’ means such employment from which the employed dependent of the deceased government servant may provide sustenance or can maintain other dependents is concerned, it has to be looked at ‘objectively’ and not ‘subjectively’. It is not for the authority considering the application for compassionate appointment to find out as to whether the dependent in employment is willing to take care of other dependents or not. It would not be his concern that the gainfully employed sibling is actually providing sustenance to the other dependents or not. Any argument that the dependent in employment is not willing to provide sustenance/maintenance to other dependents or that the employed one is living separately is beyond the scope and ambit of consideration under the given scheme and policy of the government and this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into enquiring the correctness of the facts so pleaded before the Court. It is because the writ Court is to be conscious of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex 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. We have quoted paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment of Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (supra) only to remind us what the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the following words;-
“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”.
From the orders impugned it would transpire that the monthly pension of the mother of the petitioner is Rs.18,050/- and the elder brother of the petitioner as per the salary slip considered by the respondents as also by the Circle Officer in his report is earning a monthly amount of Rs.26,731/-Thus the family is drawing a monthly income of Rs.44,781/-. The respondent authorities especially the Circle Officer having come to the conclusion that the said amount is sufficient for the maintenance of the members of the family of the deceased, the Court finds no reason to disagree with the said finding.
So far as reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma (supra) is concerned, it may only be observed here that as per the facts of the said case, a member of the family of the deceased had received certain amount under the Rules which were as a one time measure. The elder brother of the applicant in the said case was not drawing any salary as a result of any employment but was engaged in cultivation. Thus the ratio of the judgment in the case of Govind Prakash Verma (supra) will be of no assistance to the petitioner so far as the facts of the instant case are concerned.
The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is with respect to partition having taken place in the family during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner. The said fact is not relevant in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick (supra), relevant paragraph of which is quoted herein above.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the petition, the Court finds no illegality in the order impugned nor any merit in the instant writ application.
The application is dismissed.