Patna High Court
Surbhi Soni vs The State Of Bihar on 12 December, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13880 of 2019
======================================================
Surbhi Soni, D/o late Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, Wife of Shri Jwela Kumar
Ranjan, Resident of Village- Lagma, P.S. Sakatpur, Prakhand- Taradih,
District- Darbhanga, Presently Residing at Village- Madhepur(Paschim), P.S.
Madhepur, District-Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Madhubani.
7. The Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Jhanjharpur, District-
Madhubani.
8. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Madhubani through
its Chairman, Namley District Magistrate, Madhubani.
9. The Secretary, District Compassionate Appointment Committee,
Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-12-2023
The married daughter of a deceased employee is
before this court challenging Annexures-4 and 5 which
restricted the benefit under the compassionate appointment
scheme to the wife, the son, unmarried or married and an
Patna High Court CWJC No.13880 of 2019 dt.12-12-2023
2/4
unmarried daughter. The petitioner's contention is that this
discriminates against the female sex, which is not permissible
under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced two
judgments of a Single Bench, one of the High Court of
Jharkhand in WP (S) No.2818 of 2017 titled Kalyani Kumari
Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand; decided on 20.11.2017 and
the other of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ
Petition No.18660 of 2013 titled Krishnaveni v.
Superintending Engineer Kadamparai Electricity Generation
Block Minparai; decided on 10.07.2013, both setting at naught
similar notifications issued in that State.
2. We are not looking into the judgments of the High
Court of Jharkhand in Kalyani Kumari Mishra (supra) or High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Krishnaveni (supra),
especially since they have only a persuasive value insofar as this
Court is concerned. We also say this because the petitioner has
no valid claim to assert for compassionate appointment.
3. On facts, it has to be noticed that the petitioner's
father died on 25.06.2008 and her mother, the wife of the
deceased employee, made an application on 28.10.2009. This
was rejected on 27.08.2012 as she was over-aged and then the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13880 of 2019 dt.12-12-2023
3/4
son applied on 28.12.2012. When the son's application was
pending, the learned counsel submits that the family decided
that the daughter, i.e. the petitioner, who is estranged from her
husband would look after the family.
4. In fact, compassionate appointment, as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, works against the equality
clause as enshrined in the Constitution. The benefit is conferred
on the dependents of a deceased employee only to see that the
family is not pushed to penury. For the said benefit to be
effective, it has to be granted immediately on the death of the
employee and also the rationale behind it is the sustenance of
the family which may be pushed to penury by reason of the
death of the only bread winner.
5. The petitioner has made an application on
20.03.2017
allegedly on the decision taken by the family that
she will support the family; since she is estranged from her
husband. Hence, the petitioner's application is not made due to
the death of her father which could lead to penury of the family,
but the estrangement of the petitioner from her husband. This is
not a reason for granting compassionate appointment. We also
see that there is considerable delay in the petitioner making an
application. In such circumstances, we refuse to consider the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13880 of 2019 dt.12-12-2023
issue of unconstitutionality, as raised in the above writ petition
which is filed by a person without a valid claim for reason of it
being grossly delayed.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
dismiss the writ petition.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Sunil/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.12.2023
Transmission Date
