Patna High Court
Alok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2293 of 2022
======================================================
Alok Kumar S/O Late Ashok Kumar Resident of Shastri Nagar quarter no.
651/800, opp. Begreegram, Ltd., Bihar, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Shastri Nagar,
District- Patna at present residing Lal Bhawan, Mridubhashi Nagar, South
Brahampur, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary.
2. The Advocate General, Bihar, Patna.
3. Additional Advocate General, cum In-charge, office of Advocate General,
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Law department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar (AC to GP-4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the
nature of Certiorari/Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding the
respondent authorities for the grant of following relief/s:-
"I. For quashing the impugned letter
bearing No. 343 dt. 18.9.2019, letter no. 29
Patna High Court CWJC No.2293 of 2022 dt.14-07-2026
2/8
dt. 23.1.2020 as well as memo no. 303 dated
29.11.2021
whereby and hereunder the
claim of petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground has been rejected.
II. For a direction to respondent authorities
to consider the claim of the petitioner and
pass an order for appointment to a suitable
post on the basis of compassionate ground
on his father died in harness from the post
of Stenographer, office of Advocate General,
Bihar, Patna.
III. For such other relief or reliefs as the
petitioner may be found entitled to in the eye
of law.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the father of the petitioner died on 08.03.2015, leaving behind
his wife, two sons and three daughters. He submits that the
eldest son after coming into service has been living separately
and being separate in mess and business has not shown any
concern during the lifetime of his deceased father. Counsel
submits that the petitioner’s father was working as a
Stenographer in the office of Advocate General, Bihar and after
the sudden death of the petitioner’s father, the office of the
Advocate General, Patna High Court has rejected the claim of
appointment on compassionate ground vide Letter No. 343
Patna High Court CWJC No.2293 of 2022 dt.14-07-2026
3/8
dated 18.09.2019, on the ground that the eldest son of the Late
Ashok Kumar is in Government service and working in the
Circle Office, Phulwarisharif, Patna. Counsel further submits
that the family of the petitioner is in acute distress and
compassionate appointment be given to the petitioner, as the
compassionate appointment cannot be denied only on the
ground that another son is in service if he is not maintaining and
supporting the family. In the family of the petitioner, there is
wife of the deceased employee and unmarried young sister. He
submits that the petitioner’s father died in the year 2015. The
application was filed in the year 2018, thereafter in 2019, and
again on 25 November 2020. But, prior to three representations,
the request for compassionate appointment has been rejected on
the ground that after the death of petitioner’s father, the eldest
son joined the services and one of the dependent in the family is
in a position of gainfully employment.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner due to the
reason that death has taken place in the year 2015 and in the
rejection order, it has been acknowledged that upon verification
from the Circle Office, it has come that the elder brother of the
petitioner is in service. Counsel further relied on a judgment
Patna High Court CWJC No.2293 of 2022 dt.14-07-2026
4/8
passed by Hon’ble L.P.A. Bench of this Court in case of Rajeev
Kumar Manjhi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in
(2018) 2 PLJR 263 and submits that in this case, the appellant’s
father died in the year 2001 and the family survived after that
for more than five years. The application for compassionate
appointment was filed after more than four and a half years and
there was also available on record the fact that one of the sons
of the deceased employee was in government employment.
Counsel submits that the compassionate appointment is not a
right, it is a process of appointment contrary to the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is required to be
granted on exceptional circumstances and in accordance with
the scheme for compassionate appointment. Moreover, the
compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long
period of time. The compassionate appointment is not a form of
reservation to be claimed as a matter of right. Counsel further
submits that from the documents, it also does not transpire that
the brother of the petitioner who is earning, is maintaining the
family or not. In case of non-maintenance, there are different
laws under which the mother can demand maintenance from the
son under section 125 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Act No. 2 of 1974), under the Protection of Women From
Patna High Court CWJC No.2293 of 2022 dt.14-07-2026
5/8
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005) and under
the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (Act No. 56 of 2007) read with its corresponding
rules framed by the State of Bihar.
5. In response thereof, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the exceptional circumstance is that the
Ward Commissioner has given a certificate and the petitioner’s
sister is unmarried.
6. This Court on the point of exceptional
circumstance is of the opinion that in granting certificate by the
Ward Commissioner and the law framed by the law makers, the
law framed by the law makers shall prevail.
7. Upon perusal of the judgment cited by the
learned counsel for the State in case of Rajeev Kumar Manjhi
(supra), it is necessary to quote the relevant para nos. 4, 5 & 6,
which states as follows:-
“4. However on going through the various
aspects of the matter we find that the
appellant’s father died in the year 2001. The
family survived after that for more than five
years. The application for compassionate
appointment was filed after more than four
and a half years and there was also
available on record the fact that one of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2293 of 2022 dt.14-07-2026
6/8sons of the deceased employee was in
government employment. There was no
partition of the family property. The
property of the family was enough for
maintenance and the widowed mother was
not being maintained by the elder brother
she has a right to claim maintenance under
the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act 2007 and finding that it
is not a fit case where compassionate
appointment can be granted, the application
has been rejected.
5. Even though the learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently argued that in this
case, once in the year 2011 the matter was
remanded back to appropriate Committee
and the Committee was of the opinion that
the elder brother was not maintaining the
family and living separately, it was fit case
where compassionate appointment should
have been granted. It is said that in
rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the
ground as are indicated hereinabove both
the departmental authorities and the learned
Writ Court have committed an error.
6. Having considered the rival contentions
and having bestowed our anxious
consideration on various issues of the
matter, we hold that compassionate
appointment is not a right, it is a process of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2293 of 2022 dt.14-07-2026
7/8appointment contrary to the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it
is required to be granted on exceptional
circumstances and in accordance with the
scheme for compassionate appointment.
Apart from the fact that compassionate
appointment cannot be granted after a long
period of time which has lapsed after death
of the legal heir of the family.
Compassionate appointment is not a form of
reservation to be claimed as a matter of
right. The settled principle that can be
safely derived on going through the various
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
with regard to the scope of compassionate
appointment, are as follows:-
(1) General Manager, SBI v. Anju Jain
[(2008) 8 SCC 475], wherein it has been
laid down that delay and laches in claim of
compassionate appointment cannot be
permitted.
(2) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad
Ahmad Mir [(2006) 5 SCC 766],
Compassionate appointment cannot be
granted after 10 to 14 years of death of the
employee that also after the son attains
majority.
(3) Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1996)
1 SCC 301]
(4) Haryana State Electricity Board v.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2293 of 2022 dt.14-07-2026
8/8
Hakim Singh [(1997) 8 SCC 85]”.
8. Hence, in this background, this Court is of the
firm view that rejection order of the petitioner is absolutely in
accordance with law and there is no need of any interference in
this matter.
9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, this
writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14/07/2026 Transmission Date NA
