Patna High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 29 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13072 of 2012
======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey S/O Late Latan Pandey Resident Of Village-
Kushaharo, P.S- Andar, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue
And Land Reforms, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The Circle Officer, Maharajganj.
5. The Circle Officer, Raghunathpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
: Mr. Sudama Kumar, Advocate
: Mr.Radhey Shyam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
: Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2024
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The present writ application has been filed for
quashing the order issued under Memo No.251 dated
17.02.2012
passed by the respondent No.3 by which the
respondent No.3 has rejected the appointment of the petitioner
on compassionate ground for the reason that the petitioner has
not furnished the affidavit as required vide Annexure-3 by
which the petitioner is required to submit some affidavit with
respect to the none of the family members of the petitioner is in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13072 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024
service and petitioner has not filed the same within the
stipulated period then the respondent No.3 has made an enquiry
and after receiving the report of the enquiry it was found that the
elder brother of the petitioner was in service and on that ground
the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and despite of
repeated request, the petitioner has not furnished the certificate
of source of income of his elder brother. The father of the
petitioner was Government Servant posted as Revenue
Employee, Maharajganj and while he was in service he died on
23.09.2010 leaving behind his wife, two sons and one daughter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Sri Akhilesh Kumar
Pandey was living separately with his family and he has not
looked after the family members of the petitioner and in the year
2010 the petitioner has applied for his appointment on
compassionate ground and the District Appointment Committee
vide his meeting dated 25.05.2011 considered by the District
Level Committee for compassionate appointment and the
respondent No.3 has issued a letter to the petitioner to joint the
duty within 15 days with certain conditions and accordingly the
petitioner has joined in the office of the Circle Office,
Maharajganj on 01.07.2011. All of a sudden, the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.13072 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024
received a show cause notice on 30.01.2012 issued under the
signature of the respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to
submit explanation within three days as to why your service has
not been terminated for not disclosing the facts. Pursuant to that
show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply and
respondent No.3 after considering the explanation given by the
petitioner has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 without
considering the fact that elder brother of the petitioner is living
separately during lifetime of his father.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
referring the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner has
been appointed by the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee and the petitioner has not furnished the information
as required under the Memo No.411 dated 25.05.2011. Further
submits that it was further stipulated in the case he has furnished
wrong information and forgery was revealed or found his
service are terminated at any stage. Further submits that in the
light of the notification of the General Administration
Department dated 24.10.2011, the petitioner had not submitted
non-employment certificate of his brother despite demand letter
No.9 letter dated 06.01.2011 and it has come during enquiry by
Patna High Court CWJC No.13072 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024
the Circle Officer, Raghunathpur, the elder brother of the
petitioner, namely, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey is in
Government Service and the Circle Officer also informed the
respondent No.3 that the elder brother of the petitioner was a
Government Servant and he was a member of the joint family
of the petitioner and respondent No.3 after examining all the
facts has passed the impugned order and has cancelled the
candidature of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has
relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Niraj
Kumar Mallick Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in
2018 (2) PLJR 951, paragraph Nos.42,43 and 45 of the said
judgment, which read as follows:-
"42. In my considered opinion the
judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court are consistently saying that
appointment on compassionate ground is
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. To me it appears
that there cannot be any other
Patna High Court CWJC No.13072 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024
consideration".
"43. The essence of the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Division Bench in the case of
Vishal Kumar (supra) is based on a sound
rationale and reasoning in conformity
with the views expressed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a catena of decision
some of them, I have referred hereinabove
to enlighten with the legal doctrines".
"45. A perusal of Clause (d) of
Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of
respondent no.2 in CWJC No.17143 of
2016 would show that the clarification
offered by the General Administration
Department clearly states that where any
of the dependents of a deceased
government servant is "gainfully
employed" then irrespective of the fact
whether he lives together or separate
from other dependents, the benefit of
compassionate appointment would not be
available to any other dependents of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13072 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024
deceased government servant. I am of the
considered opinion that the clarification
offered by the Department being a part of
the policy decision governing the scheme
of appointment on compassionate ground
is based on judicial pronouncement of
this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar
(supra) and it is fully in consonance with
the object of compassionate appointment,
it is also in tune with the views expressed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of
decisions some of them I have referred
herein above. It is also reasonable one
and passes the test of Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. The
clarification vide Clause (d) of Annexure-
"A" to the counter affidavit of respondent
no.2 cannot be found fault with on the
touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India".
5. Learned counsel for the State further relied upon a
judgment of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar Vs. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.13072 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024
State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(2)PLJR 453, paragraph
Nos.4 and 5 of the said judgment, which read as follows:-
"4. The Court is afraid, this logic of law
will not apply for if there will be rivalry
within the family as in the present case
between the father and the son or between
siblings, a job can be offered on the
principle of compassionate appointment
only to one person and when one is
gainfully employed, there is no obligation to
offer a job in an otherwise backdoor entry
employment".
"5. An order has been cited in the case of
Bharat Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.,
reported in 1998(1)PLJR 125. From
paragraph-4 of the order, it is clear that the
learned Single Judge has clearly mentioned
that he is not deciding the validity of any
guideline and merely permitted filing of a
representation. This case does not apply to
the circumstances of the case under
consideration".
Patna High Court CWJC No.13072 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024
6. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the
writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
