Sujit Kumar Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar

Date : 03-08-2026 This Court has heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioners in all the three cases whereas, the State is represented through Mr. Kinkar Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No. 09, Ms. Kumari Amrita, learned Government Pleader No. 03 as also junior counsels representing in the matter.

The facts of the cases are not in dispute that they are wards/dependents of the deceased teachers, who died prior to coming into force of the 2006, Rules for appointment of teachers, i.e. The Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, “Rules, 2006”).

The petitioners in all the three cases have made their applications for appointment on compassionate ground prior to coming into force of Rules, 2006; but by one reason or other, inter alia owing to ban imposed by the Government in Human Resources Department vide Departmental Letter No. 2039 dated 17.11.2003 and Letter No. 626 dated 16.04.2005, their appointments were not considered and subsequently, their names were recommended for appointment on Class III post by the District Compassionate Committee after 01.07.2006.

Consequently, the petitioners were duly appointed as Prakhand/Nagar Teacher on fixed pay. The petitioners in pursuant to their appointment letters joined on their respective post. However, on being dissatisfied with the action of the State Government in extending appointment to the post of Prakhand/Nagar Teacher on fixed pay, contrary to their recommendation made by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, the petitioners preferred writ petitions.

It would be worth noting here that in case of CWJC No. 3070 of 2025, the petitioner had filed CWJC No. 13821 of 2010, which was disposed off with a direction to the District Magistrate, Begusarai to take necessary decision and communicate the outcome of such decision, whereupon, the matter was again placed before the District Compassionate Committee, who vide Memo No. 955 dated 06.07.2015 reiterated his earlier decision to appoint the petitioner on Class III post, which was to be executed by the Education Department.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, when no action was taken, the petitioner in CWJC No. 3070 of 2025 filed another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 9882 of 2019, which came to be disposed off with a direction to the District Programme Officer, Begusarai, to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 8963 of 2018 (Chandra Shekhar Azad & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The petitioner also preferred MJC No. 2511 of 2019 and while the same was pending consideration, in the meanwhile, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai, has come up with an order contained in Memo No. 1908 dated 11.07.2019, rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Similarly in CWJC No. 3076 of 2025, on being aggrieved with the action of the respondents preferred CWJC No. 6146 of 2009, which also came to be disposed off with a direction that in pursuant of a recommendation made in his favour by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, his appointment be made strictly in accordance with the Government instruction dated 17.10.2008. However, the order of the learned Single Judge came to be set-aside by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, which order was also questioned before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 34174-34175 of 2013, which was finally disposed off vide order dated 03.04.2017, analogously with the case of Mukesh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 383, granting liberty to approach the State Government for suitable reliefs, in terms with the order passed in SLP (C) No. 29655 of 2010 (Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.).

So far the petitioner in CWJC No. 5504 of 2015 is concerned, the petitioner on being aggrieved, has preferred CWJC No. 24351 of 2018, which was finally heard and disposed off directing the District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Begusarai, to consider the case of the petitioner vide order dated 01.05.2019. However, the District Education Officer/District Programme Officer never passed any order in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court.

Adverting to the aforesaid facts, Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the large number of persons identical to the present writ petitioners had approached this Court and finally the matter reached to the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4776-4777 of 2017 Mukesh (supra), which was finally heard and disposed off with an observation that the persons, whose names were recommended prior to 01.07.2006 are entitled to appointment on Class III and Class IV post or will be entitled for continuation of teacher on a regular pay scale and with respect to those, in their favour recommendations have been made after 01.07.2006, they have been extended liberty to approach the State Government for suitable relief in terms of the order passed in SLP (C) No. 29655 of 2010.

The State Government in the aforesaid background, after proper deliberation issued its decision to make appointment as per the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on Class III and Class IV posts, in all the cases where government servant died prior to 01.07.2006 and they were party before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra) and others analogous cases. The aforesaid decision has been taken in the light of the Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 issued by the Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar.

It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, the State of Bihar aggrieved with the order passed in CWJC No. 6282 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge preferred LPA No. 1472 of 2015 (The State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Rhituraj Saraubh), which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment/order dated 18.04.2018 and observed that the State Government to act on the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee, insofar as, it concerns the petitioners of the case, in view of the Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 issued by the State Government and its Education Department. The respondents in compliance with the order passed by the Division Bench appointed the writ petitioners of the concerned cases to their respective regular post of teachers in the regular pay scale.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that with respect to some of the other similarly situated persons, who were though appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers under the regular pay scale vide Memo No. 120 dated 01.02.2018 by the order of the District Education Officer, Madhepura; such order was subsequently recalled vide Memo No. 167 dated 07.02.2018. The said order was challenged by the employees concerned in CWJC No. 8963 of 2018 Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), where the learned Court considering the order passed in the case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra) vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 has directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners strictly taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, especially, in view of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh (supra).

Learned Advocate for the petitioners further referred various decisions passed by learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Division Bench in support of their claim and contended with all his vehemence that their cases are also fully covered with the decisions passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra) and Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra).

Non consideration of the case of the petitioners and/or rejection of their claim for their appointment to the regular post of Class III, despite the admitted fact that in their cases, the deceased employees died prior to 01.07.2006, much before coming into force of Rules, 2006, the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Referring to the letter contained in Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018, it is submitted that the respondents have clarified the position that in case the death of the deceased employee took place prior to 01.07.2006 and recommendations have been made by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee for appointment to the post of Class III post in regular pay scale, they ought to be appointed on the recommended post and not on the fixed honorarium/pay. In the case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), the learned Division Bench has rightly observed that once the advisory under Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 has been issued by the State Government, it binds the authorities of the State for ensuring its compliance.

Any subsequent order modifying the earlier letter contained in Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 or withdrawing the same with retrospective date is per se illegal and a move to undone the action taken by the State and its authorities, in compliance of the order of this Court and on nullity. Hence, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners, under Memo no. 336 dated 07.03.2019, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and fit to be set-aside.

Per contra, learned Advocates for the State unanimously submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra) held that only those applicants, whose cases were recommended for appointment on compassionate ground prior to 01.07.2006 would be entitled for appointment on the regular post in regular pay scale, and other applicants who were appointed after 01.07.2006 will not be entitled for relief of regular pay scale. Though liberty was extended to the persons who were appointed after 01.07.2006 to approach the State Government, and in some of the cases, despite the admitted position that they were appointed after 01.07.2006, were extended the benefit of regular pay scale, but the same is in the humble submission of the learned Advocate for the State is contrary to the mandate of Mukesh (supra). Besides, it is further argued that if any illegality has been committed, the same cannot be perpetuated. Right to Equality cannot be claimed by the petitioners to commit another illegality, as the Right to Equality has a positive concept.

The case of the petitioners are not identical to those of Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), as in their cases, they were duly appointed against the regular post in the regular pay scale, but subsequently such orders were withdrawn and they have been brought under the cadre of Prakhand/Nagar Teacher on fixed pay. In such circumstances, the Court directed in the matter not to interfere in their recommendation for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in regular pay scale. In the light of the aforesaid decision, the State under compelling circumstances, took a decision to extend the benefit of regular pay scale.

It is further argued that after coming into force of Rules, 2006, no appointment could be possible against a regular vacant post of Assistant Teacher, which is a dying cadre. The appointments of the petitioners were only possible to the post of Prakhand/Nagar Teacher in the light of Rule 10 of the Rules, 2006; which have been done in the case of the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners are said to be unjustified and contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh (supra).

This Court has carefully heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and also meticulously perused the decisions referred hereinabove. The facts are not in dispute and it do not require any further deliberation. The only question for consideration before this Court as has arisen as to whether the claim of the petitioners are similar to those of the said identically situated persons. In their cases, admittedly the recommendation for their appointment against the regular post in regular pay scale was made after 01.07.2006. Summingly, they were allowed appointment against a contractual post in fixed pay scale, but on challenge, they ultimately succeeded, and in their cases, the State authorities have accepted their recommendations and allowed their appointment to the regular post in the regular pay scale.

It is trite law that the persons have no legal right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, as these appointments are not a source of recruitment and they are made to provide succor to a family of employee who died in harness. However, the same is possible if any rules or any scheme is formulated in this regard. It is not in dispute that in the case at hand, the claim of the appointment of the petitioners is to be considered in the light of the Rules, 2006; which categorically provides appointment on the post of Prakhand Teachers, Panchayat Teachers and Nagar Panchayat Teachers etc., on a fixed pay in case of death of the employee, who died in harness.

The claim of the petitioners are mainly based on the premise that once the deceased employee died prior to 01.07.2006, their cases ought to be considered, in the light of the rules applicable with respect to compassionate appointment at the time of death of the employees and not the date on which recommendation is made. The recommendation for appointment on compassionate grounds is a fortuitous act and thus, in no circumstances, it governs the fate of the petitioners. Moreover, in the case of the petitioners, even when the recommendations were made for appointment against the regular post in regular pay scale, the same has not been accepted by the State and its authorities.

The dispute involved in the present cases as raised in various cases, including in the case of Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar (supra) and Viswanath Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar, CWJC No. 7218 of 2007. However, when the matter has later on reached to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra), the Hon’ble Court has given a quietus to such dispute by holding as follows:-

On plain reading of the aforesaid decision, it is imperative that it has left no room for any confusion that in cases where the recommendations was made prior to 01.07.2006, would entitle the applicant to a Class III or Class IV post on regular basis or for continuance as teacher in a regular scale but, at the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended liberty to those persons, in whose cases their recommendations were made after 01.07.2006 to approach the State Government for suitable relief in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the S.L.P. preferred by the writ petitioner Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar (supra). It is only such observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which gave birth to the advisory issued by the State Government in the Department of Education under Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018.

The aforenoted Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 was subjected to consideration by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), in LPA No. 1472 of 2015, where the Court in no uncertain terms held that such resolution is loud and clear and concludes that in case the death of a Government teacher has taken place prior to 01.07.2006 and recommendation has been made by a competent District Compassionate Committee for appointment of his dependent against a regular post in a regular pay scale under the Government, then that recommendation has to be acted upon and the appointment has to be provided against a regular Class III or Class IV or against the post of a teacher against a regular pay scale. It would be worth benefiting to quote the relevant paragraphs which would, in the opinion of this Court, would certainly guide to reach a fair and final conclusion in the matter.

Identical issue has also come up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), on a reference made by a Bench of this Court, when it expressed its difficulty in accepting the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that once the post of Assistant Teacher in regular cadre is dying cadre, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. versus Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 301, it cannot be enhanced by allowing the persons to be appointed against such post of Assistant Teacher, and thus finding it difficult to accept the judgment rendered by the different Bench, referred the matter to a larger Bench to consider the following issues, which are extracted hereinbelow:-

The learned Division Bench while answering the questions referred hereinabove primarily held that after coming into force of Rules for Appointment of Teachers 2006, the cadre of Assistant Teacher is a dying cadre. However, with respect to the second question, it is observed that if the equity, justice and conscience requires a constitutional Court to direct the State Government to induct one as a teacher in dying cadre, it may be done, and there cannot be made any bar on the exercise of constitutional power of the Court in issuing such direction in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The issue number four which is important for the present lis; the learned Division Bench has answered that in terms of mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra), appointment on compassionate ground in the dying cadre of Assistant Teacher was permissible only in the cases where recommendation for appointment was made by the committee prior to 01.07.2006. But in view of the liberty granted to take a decision in respect of those, whose cases had been recommended after 01.07.2006, if the State Government took a decision vide Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 to appoint those persons, who were wards of the Government Teachers, and they died prior to 01.07.2006, and by virtue of such decisions, those persons have already been appointed, there is nothing on the record to show that it was a result of a wrong understanding of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The learned Division Bench further while negating the stand of the State that the cadre of the Assistant Teacher is a dying cadre and, as such, no further appointment could be made on such posts categorically answered that such argument is not available with the State Government and would not apply to the facts of the present case. Once such plea of dying cadre was raised in the case of the Bihar Secondary Teacher Struggle Committee & Ors. (supra) by way of a submission only to contest the pay of equal pay for equal work for Niyojit Shikshak. Finally, while answering the question number six with respect to application of departmental Letter No. 336 dated 07.03.2019, as well as Letter contained in Memo No. 944 dated 19.07.2019, the Court held as follow:-

A bare meticulous reading of the above referred decision in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), it is imperative that the learned Division Bench in sum and substance categorically held that since it was open for the Government to consider their cases in the light of the liberty extended by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra), as well as Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar (supra), and under these circumstances, if the State Government considered their cases and granted them the benefit of compassionate appointment as Assistant Teacher, now they cannot be allowed to take a plea that it was a result of misunderstanding and exercise in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

This Court has also come across various other decisions, including the decisions rendered in the case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), the copies of which have been brought on record. In consequence thereof, the petitioners of those cases have been appointed against the regular post in regular pay scale.

The Court time and again has cautioned the State and its authorities while reiterating the settled principle that equals must be treated equally, and if persons similarly placed are treated differently without any rational, it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If two sets of employees stand on the same footing, in terms of the date of the death of the deceased employees, the date of their recommendation and their eligibility and applicability under statutory rules, besides the identical liberty extended by the highest Court of the land, the State cannot in the opinion of this Court, extend a benefit to one group and deny it to the another group without demonstrating a valid distinction. Equality does not allow selective or partial implementation of policy or the advisory taken by the State, as has been done while issuing Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018, extending liberty to those in their cases, the recommendations have been made even after 01.07.2006, and thus it has rightly been held by the learned Division Bench in the case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra) that such letter binds the State authorities for ensuring its compliance and for taking the matter to its logical conclusion, in the light of the principle discussed in the rulings.

The State being a model employer is expected to show fairness in action. In Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354, the Apex Court has observed that as a model employer, the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees. It would be worth benefiting and opposite at this stage to reproduce paragraph no. 65 of the decision, while the Court emphasizing the role of State as a model employer in case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 516, has observed as follows:-

In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 118, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has significantly ruled that the main concern of the Court in such matter is to ensure with the rule of law and to see that the State and the executive act fairly and give a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In the light of the aforesaid deliberation and discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the decision dated 07.03.2019 contained in Letter No. 336 and any other consequential letter debarring the cases of identically situated persons, with those of the petitioners, who have been appointed against regular post in regular pay, irrespective of their recommendation have been made after 01.07.2006, by exercising the liberty granted to the State in Mukesh (supra), the same is wholly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory besides such action does not withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The authorities must not forget that recommendation by the District Compassionate Committee is an administrative and fortuitous act. Hence, there may be various reasons depending upon the facts of each and cases, which may lead to delay in making recommendation and for which, the wards and dependent of the deceased employee cannot be penalized. It is in this premise, the State was extended the power to do justice, with those persons.

In view of the reasons disclosed hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the cases of the petitioners are also identical to those of Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra) and Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), in whose favor, pursuant to the order of this Court, the State Government and its authorities have taken a decision to extend the benefit of regular pay scale and, as such, the petitioners are also entitled to get similar treatment with those of the petitioners of the said case.

Accordingly, this Court directs the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, as well as the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar to consider their cases afresh by treating at par with those of the cases of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), and extend all the consequential benefits, including the regular pay scale, as has been given to them, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The impugned orders by which the claim of the petitioners have been negated on the ground of dissimilarity are hereby set aside.

All these writ petitions stand allowed.

The parties shall bear their own cost.

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/sumit-