Patna High Court – Orders
Kunal Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2748 of 2026
======================================================
Kunal Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
... ... Respondent/s
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2754 of 2026
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
... ... Respondent/s
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2871 of 2026
======================================================
Shivanand Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2748 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Manoj Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (25)
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2754 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (24)
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2871 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Manoj Kumar Sinha, SC XXVI with
For the Respondent/s : M/s Santosh Kr Mishra, Divit Vinod, ACs to XXVI
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. All the three writ petitions have been filed for
identical relief which is being reproduced herein below:
“… … … for issuance of proper
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of “Mandamus” directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post
of Class III from Class IV on compassionate
ground on the basis of notifications dated 25th
April, 2012 and 24th August, 2016 issued under
the signature of Principal Secretary, General
Administration Department, Government of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/25Bihar and Additional Secretary, Government of
Bihar because the petitioner has been appointed
on the post of Class IV which is against the said
notification though the petitioner has passed
Intermediate and according to the said
notifications, the petitioner should have been
appointed on the post of Class III in the grade pay
of Rs 1900/- whereas the respondents have opted
pick and choose policy and ignoring the
guidelines issued by the Government of Bihar as
also the orders passed by the Hon’ble Patna High
Court in several cases.”
CWJC No. 2748 of 2026
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the father of the petitioner, while posted as Clerk in Block
Office – Banmankhi, Purnea, died in harness on 18.01.2019.
After the death of his father, the petitioner filed an application
for appointment on compassionate ground on 04.06.2019 along
with all the relevant documents as well as the Death Certificate
of his father.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that although the petitioner was having qualification
of Intermediate at the time of appointment, the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee, Purnea, in its meeting
dated 16.01.2021, took a decision and recommended the case of
the petitioner for appointment on Class – IV post with Grade
Pay of Rs. 1,800/-. Pursuant thereto, vide Memo No. 525 dated
03.05.2021 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/25
Purnea, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground
on Class – IV post in the Pay Band – 1 with Grade Pay of Rs.
1800/- along with applicable allowances of the State
Government.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the Circular of the State Government contained
in Letter No. 5958 dated 25.04.2012, issued by the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, with
regard to appointment on compassionate ground, the
recommendation will be made on the basis of the educational
qualification of the concerned candidate and the candidate
having qualification of Matric will be recommended for Grade
Pay of Rs. 1800/- and the candidate having qualification of
Intermediate and above will be recommended for appointment
with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-. Subsequently, vide Letter No.
11462 dated 24.08.2016 issued by the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, it has further clarified
that the State Government has taken a decision that the
Compassionate Appointment Committee will recommend the
candidate for direct appointment keeping in view their
educational qualification on Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- for Matric
pass candidates and for the candidates having higher
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
4/25
qualification than Matriculation, will be recommended on the
post having Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- and Grade Pay of Rs.
2000/-.
6. It was further clarified that where the post having
Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- will not be available, then the
recommending authority will recommend for appointment on
the post having Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- and in case the said
post will not be available there, then the recommending
authority will recommend for the post having Grade Pay of Rs.
1800/-. It was further clarified that if in the parent department,
the post having Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/-, Grade Pay of Rs.
1900/- and Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- is not vacant, then
appropriate decision will be taken in view of Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar Letter No. 2271 dated 02.01.2007 and
recommendation will be made to make appointment on the post
available in other departments.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that similarly situated persons who were appointed on
Class – IV post and who were recommended for being
appointed on Class – IV post by the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee, ignoring the circulars of the State
Government, filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1748 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
5/25
2013 and the said matter was finally heard and disposed of by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2013 with
a direction that if the petitioner would file his representation
before the Collector of the district, he would take appropriate
decision and pass a reasoned order with regard to the petitioner
being assigned a Class – IV post.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in view of order dated 29.01.2013 passed in CWJC No. 1748 of
2013, vide Memo No. 685 dated 07.12.2015 issued under the
signature of the District Magistrate, Banka, the petitioner of
CWJC No. 1748 of 2013 was appointed on Class – III post.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that one Rakesh Kumar approached this Court by filing
CWJC No. 14077 of 2024 for almost identical relief. The writ
petition was finally decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 01.10.2024 whereby the coordinate Bench of
this Court, after having considered the circulars issued by the
General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, set
aside the decision of the Compassionate Appointment
Committee, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment
on Class – III post was rejected and directed the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee, Banka to reconsider
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
6/25
the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in
the writ petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in compliance of order dated 01.10.2024 passed in
CWJC No. 14077 of 2024, vide Memo No. 181 dated
24.02.2025 issued under the signature of District Magistrate,
Banka, the said Rakesh Kumar has been appointed on Class –
III post having Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that another similarly situated person, namely, Chandan
Kumar, approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing
CWJC No. 6620 of 2025 and a coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 24.07.2025, after considering the different
circulars issued by the State Government, including the circulars
dated 25.04.2012 and 24.08.2016, disposed of the writ petition
with a direction to the District Magistrate, Banka to convene a
meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee
and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the
notification of the General Administration Department dated
25.04.2012 and 24.08.2016 and also an order passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 14077 of 2024.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
7/25
in compliance of the order dated 24.07.2025 passed in CWJC
No. 11360 of 2025, vide Memo No. 983 dated 29.11.2025
issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Banka,
petitioner, namely, Chandan Kumar has been appointed on Class
– III post having Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-.
CWJC No. 2754 of 2026
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the father of the petitioner, while posted as Panchayat Sachiv in
Amour Block, Purnea, died in harness on 30.11.2019. After the
death of his father, the petitioner filed an application for
appointment on compassionate ground on 27.11.2020 along
with all the relevant documents as well as the Death Certificate
of his father.
14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that although the petitioner was having
qualification of Graduation at the time of appointment, the
District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Purnea, in its
meeting dated 16.01.2021, took a decision and recommended
the case of the petitioner for appointment on Class – IV post
with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/-. Pursuant thereto, vide Memo
No. 520 Estb. dated 03.05.2021 issued under the signature of the
District Magistrate, Purnea, the petitioner was appointed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
8/25
compassionate ground on Class – IV post in the Pay Band – 1
with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- along with applicable allowances
of the State Government.
CWJC No. 2871 of 2026
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
while the father of the petitioner was posted as Jansevak in
Srinagar Block, Purnea, he died in harness on 05.09.2018 and
pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application for
appointment on compassionate ground along with all the
necessary documents before the competent authority. The
District Compassionate Appointment Committee, in its Meeting
dated 12.07.2019, recommended the case of the petitioner for
being appointed on a Class III post, but due to non-availability
of post, he was not appointed on Class III post and subsequently
in the meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee held on 16.01.2021, a recommendation was made
for appointment of the petitioner on Class IV post on
compassionate ground. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner was
appointed on a Class IV post vide Memo No. 526 dated
04.05.2021 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate,
Purnea and since then he is said to have been working.
16. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners have
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
9/25
prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their
case for being appointed on Class III post on the basis of the
Circulars of the State Government dated 25.04.2012 and
24.08.2016 issued by the General Administration Department.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on
order dated 29.01.2013 passed in CWJC No. 1748 of 2013
(Santosh Kumar Prasad -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others,
order dated 01.10.2024 passed in CWJC No. 14077 of 2024
(Rakesh Kumar -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others and
order dated 24.07.2025 passed in CWJC No. 11360 of 2025
(Chandan Kumar -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others) by
different coordinate Bench of this Court and relying on the
same, he submits that the respondent-authorities have granted
the benefit of Class III post to the persons concerned, who had
filed the writ petition, on which the learned counsel for the
petitioners is relying. The orders have been annexed in the
present writ petitions as Annexures – P/6, P/8 and P/10.
17. The learned counsel for the State by placing
reliance upon the counter affidavit, soft copy of which has been
uploaded on 23.02.2026 and the hard copy of the same has been
made available to this Court during course of hearing, points out
that in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
10/25
of India reported in 2025 (e) PLJR SC 76240 (Civil Appeal No
12640 of 2025), Director of Town Panchayat -Versus- M
Jayabal and its analogous cases, wherein almost similar
question was under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in
paragraphs No 7 to 19, has held as follows:
“WHETHER COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IS A
MATTER OF RIGHT?
7. First and the foremost issue which
requires consideration by this Court in the
present appeals is whether the compassionate
appointment of a family member on account of
death of an employee in service, is as a matter
of right or not. The issue stands settled in an
authoritative judgment of this Court in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana8. It was
opined therein that the core objective behind
granting compassionate employment is to
enable the family to tide over sudden financial
crisis and such favourable treatment that is
given to the dependant of the deceased
employee is a relief against destitution. It is
totally on humanitarian grounds. The relevant
paragraphs in are extracted below:
“2………..One such exception is in favour
of the dependants of an employee dying in
harness and leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood. In such cases,
out of pure humanitarian consideration taking
into consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
11/25provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object
is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased.
What is further, mere death of an employee in
harness does not entitle his family to such
source of livelihood. The Government or the
public authority concerned has to examine the
financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but
for the provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be
offered to the eligible member of the family.
The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest
posts in non-manual and manual categories and
hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution
and to help it get over the emergency. The
provision of employment in such lowest posts
by making an exception to the rule is justifiable
and valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favourable treatment given to such dependant of
the deceased employee in such posts has a
rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No
other posts are expected or required to be given
by the public authorities for the purpose….”
(emphasis supplied)
7.1. In the Premlata’s case (supra),
this court analysed the nature of appointment
made on compassionate basis and opined that
the same is an exception to the general rule of
appointment in the public services. The aspirant
has no right to compassionate appointment. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
12/25
was clarified that the appointment on
compassionate ground is a concession and not a
right. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
below:
“8. While considering the issue involved in
the present appeal, the law laid down by this
Court on compassionate ground on the death of
the deceased employee are required to be
referred to and considered. In the recent
decision, this Court in State of Karnataka v. V.
Somyashree [State of Karnataka v. V.
Somyashree, (2021) 12 SCC 20 : (2023) 1 SCC
(L&S) 302], had occasion to consider the
principle governing the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground. After referring to the
decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State
of Karnataka [N.C. Santhosh v. State of
Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 : (2020) 2 SCC
(L&S) 861], this Court has 7 ummarized the
principle governing the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground as under : (V.
Somyashree case [State of Karnataka v. V.
Somyashree, (2021) 12 SCC 20 : (2023) 1 SCC
(L&S) 302], SCC para 10)
“10.1. That the compassionate appointment
is an exception to the general rule.
10.2. That no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment.
10.3. The appointment to any public post in
the service of the State has to be made on the
basis of the principle in accordance with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10.4. Appointment on compassionate ground
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
13/25
can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid
down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of
the eligibility criteria as per the policy.
10.5. The norms prevailing on the date of the
consideration of the application should be the
basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.”
9. As per the law laid down by this Court in a
catena of decisions on the appointment on
compassionate ground, for all the government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided
to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. However,
appointment on compassionate ground offered
to a dependant of a deceased employee is an
exception to the said norms. The compassionate
ground is a concession and not a right.
(emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, as per the law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule
of appointment in the public services and is in
favour of the dependants of a deceased dying-
in-harness and leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood, and in such
cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object
is not to give such family a post much less a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
14/25
post held by the deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.2. Later, similar view was expressed
by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Tinku v. State of Haryana9. The relevant
paragraph is extracted below:
“12. As regards the compassionate
appointment being sought to be claimed as a
vested right for appointment, suffice it to say
that the said right is not a condition of service of
an employee who dies in harness, which must
be given to the dependent without any kind of
scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It
is an appointment which is given on proper and
strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid
down with an intention to help a family out of a
sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it
get out of the emerging urgent situation where
the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them
helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate
appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a
family of the deceased employee facing extreme
financial difficulty and but for the employment,
the family will not be able to meet the crisis.
This shall in any case be subject to the claimant
fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the
policy, instructions, or rules for such a
compassionate appointment.”
7.3. Applying the above principles of
law, it can be concluded that the dependent of a
deceased employee, though eligible, is not
entitled to appointment at any position on
compassionate basis as a matter of right. Such
appointments, made on purely humanitarian
grounds, have to be viewed as exceptions to the
general rules of appointment. It is important to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
15/25
note that mere eligibility of the applicant cannot
be reason enough to materialise his/her claim
for appointment on a higher post. Once a family
member of the deceased employee is offered
appointment on compassionate basis, the
purpose stands well served. Therefore, the
contention of the respondents that they are
entitled to be reconsidered for further
appointment on a higher post is not
maintainable.
CLAIM FOR HIGHER POST
8. It is not in dispute that after the death of
the employees in service, the dependent family
members were offered appointment to a post for
which an application was made by them. They
had joined on that post without raising any
objection. Meaning thereby, the financial crisis
of the family was over as one of the dependents
of the deceased was offered appointment on
compassionate basis in terms of the policy
existing at the time of consideration of their
application.
8.1. The next issue which requires
consideration by this Court is whether the
dependent family member of a deceased
employee, after being appointed on a post on
compassionate basis, can later on seek
indulgence of the employer to appoint him on a
higher post.
9. The law on the issue is well-settled.
The issue as to whether a second option can be
exercised by the dependent family member of
the deceased employee, once option for
compassionate appointment has already been
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
16/25
exercised and the dependent family member of
the deceased joined on the post to which
appointment was given, was considered by this
Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh10. In
this case, the deceased was working as Sub-
Inspector, CID. On account of his death during
service, application for appointment on
compassionate basis was made. The dependant
was offered appointment on the post of L.D.C.
The same was accepted and the incumbent
joined on the post. Later, he requested for
consideration of his case for appointment on the
post of Sub-Inspector, being eligible for the
same. This Court negated the claim holding that
once right for consideration for appointment on
compassionate post was consummated, any
further or second consideration for a higher post
on the ground of compassion would not arise.
The relevant paragraph 8 is extracted below:
“8. Admittedly the respondent’s father died in
harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID
(Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent
filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his
appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-
Inspector or LDC according to the availability
of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he
was appointed to the post of LDC by order
dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment
as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered
for the appointment on compassionate ground
was consummated. No further consideration on
compassionate ground would ever arise.
Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless
compassion”. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-
Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of
selection is yet another thing. Merely because of
the so-called eligibility, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the
view that direction be issued under proviso to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
17/25Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the
facts of this case.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In view of the law laid down by
this Court, it stands clarified that the once the
right of an applicant to be considered for
appointment on compassionate grounds has
been consummated, no further consideration is
warranted. Once dependent of a deceased
employee is offered employment on
compassionate basis, his right stood exercised.
Thereafter, no question arises for seeking
appointment on a higher post. Otherwise, it
would be a case of ‘endless compassion’.
WHETHER THE DEPENDANT OF A DECEASED
EMPLOYEE CAN SEEK EMPLOYMENT ON
COMPASSIONATE BASIS ON A HIGHER POST ?
11. This Court has also opined on the issue
whether a dependent family member of a
deceased employee can seek compassionate
appointment on a post higher than the post
which the deceased was holding, merely on the
ground that he fulfils the criteria of such higher
post. The opinion expressed is that the same
will run contrary to the very object of grant of
compassionate appointment, which is provided
to enable the family of the deceased employee
to tide over sudden financial crisis. Employment
on compassionate basis is provided only on
account of humanitarian consideration. Relevant
paragraph of the judgment of this Court
in Premlata (Supra) is extracted below:
“10.2 In a given case, it may happen that the
dependant of the deceased employee who has
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
18/25applied for appointment on compassionate
ground is having the educational qualification
of Class II or Class I post and the deceased
employee was working on the post of
Class/Grade IV and/or lower than the post
applied, in that case the dependant/applicant
cannot seek the appointment on compassionate
ground on the higher post than what was held
by the deceased employee as a matter of right,
on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling
the eligibility criteria of such higher post. The
aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and
purpose of grant of appointment on
compassionate ground which as observed
hereinabove is to enable the family to tide over
the sudden crisis on the death of the
breadearner. As observed above, appointment
on compassionate ground is provided out of
pure humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that some source of
livelihood is provided and family would be able
to make both ends meet.”
12. Keeping in view the core objective
behind appointment on compassionate basis, as
has been discussed in a catena of judgments of
this Court, it is well settled that compassionate
appointment is a relief against immense
financial hardship caused by the sudden and
unforeseen loss of the earning member of a
family. In such event, when a dependant family
member of the deceased employee is provided
appointment on compassionate basis, it is done
in order to ensure that the family members are
not subjected to impoverishment. Therefore,
such appointment which is arising out of
exceptional circumstances, cannot be used as a
ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a
higher post merely on the basis that he/she is
eligible for such post.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
19/25
DELAY AND LACHES
13. The claim of the respondents/M. Jayabal
& S. Veeramani also deserves to be rejected on
the ground of delay and laches as has been
noticed in the previous part of the judgment.
Both the respondents had approached the Court
belated after they had joined on the post they
were offered appointment on compassionate
basis. Reference for this purpose can be made to
the judgment of this Court in State of
Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das11 wherein it was
held that delay reflects the indolence of a
litigant and the Court must scrutinise whether
such belated lis must be entertained or not.
Therefore, inordinate delay on behalf of any
litigant to do an act required by law shall stand
in his/her way for getting relief.
14. This Court in Debabrata Tiwari’s
case (supra) has opined that in a case where the
claim for appointment on compassionate
grounds is belated, for reasons of prolonged
delay, the sense of immediacy is diluted and
lost. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
below:
“35. Considering the second question
referred to above, in the first instance, regarding
whether applications for compassionate
appointment could be considered after a delay
of several years, we are of the view that, in a
case where, for reasons of prolonged delay,
either on the part of the applicant in claiming
compassionate appointment or the authorities in
deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is
diluted and lost. Further, the financial
circumstances of the family of the deceased,
may have changed, for the better, since the time
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
20/25of the death of the government employee.
xxx xxx xxx
41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the
present case, we hold that the respondent-writ
petitioners, upon submitting their applications
in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to
pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a
period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy
approach of the authorities of the appellant State
in dealing with their applications, the
respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching
the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a
mandamus against the authorities of the State.
In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching
the High Court, may even be regarded as a
waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the
conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such
a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ
petitioners to the discretionary relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution.”
15. It is a settled principle of law that
delay in filing of writ petition before the High
Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party. This
principle is more applicable in the cases of
compassionate appointments. The idea behind
compassionate appointment is to take care of
immediate financial crisis in the family of the
deceased employee. In such case, the delay
would mean that the family could survive even
after death of the employee, as they may be
having another source of income. In such
circumstances, the party approaching the court
with a significant delay can be denied the relief.
NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION
16. Another argument raised by learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
21/25
counsel for the respondents/M. Jayabal & S.
Veeramani was to claim parity with another
employee who had been granted similar benefit.
The law on the subject is well-settled. No one
can approach the court and base his claim on
negative discrimination merely because some
relief has been granted to a person who may not
be entitled to the same. This Court in Tinku’s
case (supra) opined that wrongful conferment of
a right or claim on someone would not entitle a
similar claim to be put forth before a court and
nor would the court be bound to accept such a
plea. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
“11. The very idea of equality enshrined in
Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity
based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a
claim having sanctity of law. No direction can,
therefore, be issued mandating the State to
perpetuate any illegality or irregularity
committed in favour of a person, an individual,
or even a group of individuals which is contrary
to the policy or instructions
applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order
wrongfully conferring some right or claim on
someone does not entitle a similar claim to be
put forth before a court nor would court be
bound to accept such plea. The court will not
compel the authority to repeat that illegality
over again. If such claims are entertained and
directions issued, that would not only be against
the tenets of the justice but would negate its
ethos resulting in the law being a causality
culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The
Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook
the same to confer a right or a claim that does
not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be
extended, and that too negative to confer a
benefit or advantage without legal basis or
justification.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
22/25
(emphasis supplied)
17. Reference for the purpose can also be
made to the judgment of this Court in Jyostnamayee
Mishra v. State of Odisha12. The relevant extract is
reproduced herein below:
“31. Another argument was raised while
referring to two communications dated
28.06.1999 appointing Ms. Jhina Rani
Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer on
promotion, claiming to be from the post of
Peon, on the basis of which the petitioner is
claiming violation of Article 14, namely the
discrimination. Suffice to add, this Court cannot
put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the
department while perpetuating the same. A
litigant coming to the Court cannot claim
negative discrimination seeking direction from
the Court to the department to act in violation of
the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled
proposition of law that Article 14 does not
envisage negative equality. Reference for the
purpose can be made to a judgment of this
Court in R. Muthukumar v. The Chairman and
Managing Director TANGEDCO. Relevant para
thereof is extracted below:
“28. A principle, axiomatic in this country’s
constitutional lore is that there is no negative
equality. In other words, if there has been a
benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of
people, without legal basis or justification, that
benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a
principle of parity or equality.
In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, this court ruled that:
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
23/25“8. It is a settled legal proposition that
Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to
perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending
the wrong decisions made in other cases. The
said provision does not envisage negative
equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if
some other similarly situated persons have been
granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by
mistake, such an order does not confer any legal
right on others to get the same relief as well. If a
wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot
be perpetuated.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. From the position of law as
enunciated above, it is evident that the
foundation of any claim based on equity has to
be devoid of the element of negative
discrimination. The respondents in the present
case are heirs of the deceased employees who
were appointed on compassionate basis upon
the death of their fathers. Their appointment, in
its own self, was a sufficient relief to serve the
actual purpose behind compassionate
appointments. The further claim of seeking
appointment on a higher post cannot be based
on the sole premise that another similarly placed
person was granted such benefit. It is a settled
proposition of law that an illegality committed
by an authority cannot be validated and further
perpetuated by its extension to other similarly
placed persons. Thus, the contention of
respondents that they may be appointed on a
higher post in view of similar benefit being
granted to another person is wholly misplaced
and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
19. From the law on the issue which
we have referred to in the aforesaid paragraphs,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
24/25
it is clearly culled out that illegal orders, passed
in case of similarly situated person, will not
confer any right upon the other person to come
to the court and enforce the same claiming
discrimination. Such plea cannot be accepted as
the authorities cannot be directed to perpetuate
the wrong committed by them. The party in
such cases may have different remedies. We are
not dilating on the same.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme court of India, on the basis
of the consideration made in the order dated 12.12.2025,
allowed the civil appeal preferred by the appellant therein.
19. From the documents available on record, it
appears that in none of the cases, which have been relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three writ
petitions, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of State of Karnataka -Versus- V Somyashree
(2021) 12 SCC 20, N C Santosh -Versus- State of Karnataka
(2020) 7 SCC 617, 2024 INSC 867 (Tinku -Versus- State of
Haryana & Others) and (1994) 6 SCC 560 (State of Rajasthan
-Versus- Umrao Singh) were considered, while disposing of the
writ petitions. Further, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Director of Town
Panchayat (supra), the case of the petitioners is required to be
considered on the basis of the same.
20. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.2748 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
25/25
prays for some time to file reply to the counter affidavit and to
go through the judgment dated 12.12.2025 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
21. Let the matter be listed on 24.03.2026, enabling
the learned counsel for the petitioners to file reply to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents. The learned
counsel for the State is directed to file the hard copy of the
counter affidavit in the office in the meantime.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
U
