Patna High Court
Jyoti Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 2 July, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22297 of 2019
======================================================
Jyoti Kumari, W/o Late Prem Prasad Singh, R/o Vikramshila Nagar, Ward
No.6, Kahalgaon, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur- 813203.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Design, Planning and Monitoring Circle,
Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur.
4. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.1 (Design), Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjan Prakash, AC to GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the letter no.446
dated 17.11.2018, whereby the respondent no.3 has intimated
the respondent no.4 that the claim of the petitioner for her
appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected for
the only reason that the petitioner has submitted application for
her compassionate appointment on 27.03.2015; after more than
five years of the death of her husband on 31.07.2009.
3. Without taking this Court through various
annexures, learned Advocate for the petitioner straightway drew
the attention of this Court to Annexure-7 of the writ petition i.e.
Patna High Court CWJC No.22297 of 2019 dt.02-07-2025
2/5
the application for her appointment on compassionate ground,
which appears to have been received in the office of the
respondent on 22.12.2010; which fact has also been admitted in
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4.
4. Mr. Jha, learned Advocate for the petitioner
submitted that, prima facie, the impugned order is based upon
an incorrect facts, inasmuch as this could not be the case of the
respondent(s) that the application for compassionate
appointment was not received within time rather the application
is said to be not in prescribed format. Had the application was
not under the prescribed format, it was the respondent
authorities, who should assist the widow (petitioner) to file
application in a prescribed format. Mere technicalities must not
defeat substantial justice to a widow. On receipt of the
application afore-noted, the petitioner was also directed to bring
the succession certificate and, immediately, the petitioner filed
Succession Case No.40/11; however, the succession case came
to be allowed in favour of the petitioner on 07.06.2018.
Immediately, after receipt of the judgment in her favour in the
succession case, the petitioner approached before the authorities
concerned and submitted the same. It has also been apprised to
this Court that on account of causing death of the erstwhile
Patna High Court CWJC No.22297 of 2019 dt.02-07-2025
3/5
employee, the petitioner had also been made accused, which led
to initiation of Sessions Trial No.112/2010. The petitioner was
put to face the rigors of trial; however, subsequently she
acquitted vide judgment dated 10.06.2019, the copy of which
has also been placed on record as Annexure-25 to the writ
petition. In the aforesaid premise, learned Advocate for the
petitioner thus contended that the reason for rejection as
mentioned in the impugned order that application for
compassionate appointment of the petitioner came to be filed
after a delay of five years, is not sustainable and fit to be set
aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the
respondents no. 1 to 4 while refuting the contention of the
petitioner has contended that though the application for
appointment on compassionate ground was received in the
office on 22.12.2010, but it was not under an appropriate
prescribed performa; moreover, the petitioner has also failed to
submit succession certificate, inasmuch as in the service book,
the name of the petitioner does not find figure as wife or
dependent. Despite several correspondences made to the
petitioner, for the first time, she submitted her application on
prescribed format along with the succession certificate on
Patna High Court CWJC No.22297 of 2019 dt.02-07-2025
4/5
27.03.2015
, much beyond five years; hence, it came to be
rejected.
6. It would be pertinent to state here that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while cautioning the State and its authorities in
the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan and
Others [AIR 1981 SC 1681] has advised the respondents to
refrain from obstructing lawful claims on technicalities.
7. It would be worth benefiting to encapsulate relevant
extract of the afore-noted judgment.
"We hopefully expect that the Central
Government will not try to shirk its legal
obligation by resorting to any legal technicalities,
for we maintain that in a democratic society
governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the
State to do what is fair and just to the citizen and
the state should not seek to defeat the legitimate
claim of the citizen by adopting a legalistic
attitude but should do what fairness and justice
demand ."
8. Considering the submissions set forth by the
learned Advocate for the respondents and taking note of the fact
noted hereinabove that the petitioner had already filed her
application long back on 22.12.2010, if there was any
shortcomings and requirement of any documents or that was
required to file in a prescribed format, it is the respondent
authorities, who should assist the petitioner-widow. Moreover,
Patna High Court CWJC No.22297 of 2019 dt.02-07-2025
in case, the petitioner had been lacking eligibility on that point
of time, her claim could have been rejected at that point of time
itself; however, after filing of the succession certificate and on
being acquitted of the charge(s) of causing death of her husband,
there is no impediment to consider the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in letter no.446
dated 17.11.2018 is held to be unsustainable and without
application of mind; hence, the same is hereby set aside.
9. The writ petition stands allowed.
10. The matter is relegated to the respondent no.2, the
Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur, to
consider the application of the petitioner for her appointment on
compassionate ground, preferably within a period of four
months from today and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in
accordance with law.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04-07-2025
Transmission Date
