Patna High Court
Tek Narayan Paswan vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2617 of 2019
======================================================
Tek Narayan Paswan, Son of Late Ram Bali Paswan, Resident of Village-
Bharsara, P.S.- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary (Home), Department of
Home, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar,
Patna
4. The Commandant, Bihar Military Police-11, Jamui
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate
Smt. Shruti Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP- 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-03-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
seeking quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 1625
dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Commandant, Bihar Military
Police-11, Jamui, by which the application of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected. The
petitioner further sought quashing of the Memo No. 2372 dated
14.10.2018
issued by the respondent no.4, whereby the
representation preferred by the mother of the petitioner also
turned down, affirming the afore-noted order dated 30.07.2018.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2617 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
3. The brief facts of the case, which led to the filing of
the present writ petition, are that while the father of the
petitioner was serving as Inspector in the Bihar Military Police-
11, Jamui, he died in harness on 11.09.2017. On account of the
unfortunate demise of the erstwhile employee, the petitioner
submitted his application for appointment on compassionate
ground by disclosing the fact that his elder brother has been
serving in the Indian Railway as Group-IV employee. The
respondent no.4, having taken note of the fact of his brother
being employed in the Indian Railway, rejected the claim of the
petitioner in view of the Circular duly issued by the General
Administrative Department dated 19.11.2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the elder brother of the petitioner, who has been serving in the
Indian Railway as Group-IV employee, had already separated
from the family long back in the year 2002. To support the
aforesaid contention, certificates issued by the authorities and
functionaries of Panchayat have been placed on record. A
representation has also been submitted by the mother of the
petitioner, acknowledging the aforesaid facts with a prayer to
the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner
for his appointment on compassionate ground, so that the family
Patna High Court CWJC No.2617 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
may be rendered immediate succor and sustenance to get over
the financial crunch on account of the sudden demise of the
bread earner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, referring
to the clarificatory Circular of the General Administrative
Department dated 19.11.2014, has submitted with all vehemence
that since the elder brother of the petitioner has been working in
the Indian Railway as Group-IV employee, hence, the family is
not in starvation and does not need any immediate financial
assistance by way of offering the present petitioner
compassionate appointment.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the materials available on
record.
7. The issue posed before this Court has already
crystallized by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Niraj
Kumar Mallick v. The State of Bihar and Others [2018 (2)
PLJR 951], wherein the learned Full Bench while considering
the clarification issued by the General Administrative
Department, bearing no. 15783 dated 19.11.2014 has observed
as follows:-
"46. I am of the considered opinion that
keeping in mind the object of the compassionate
Patna High Court CWJC No.2617 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
appointment and well settled legal proposition that
it is not a source of recruitment, it is a policy
decision based on a sound public policy provided
in the clarification that where any of the
dependents of the deceased government servant is
'gainfully employed', no other dependent would
be entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of
compassionate appointment. Government has
come out with a policy that the dependent who is
gainfully employed is living separately from other
dependents cannot be a reason to provide
appointment and irrespective of that whether
employed one lives together or separately the
other dependents would not get the benefit of
compassion. The word, 'dependents' here take into
it's fold all the siblings of the applicant. The
clarification as contained in Clause (d) of
Annexure- A to the counter affidavit is based on
the views expressed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Vishal Kumar
(supra) and at the same time it is in consonance
with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal
(supra) as also other judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
47. So far as the clarification that 'gainfully
employed' means such employment from which
the employed dependent of the deceased
government servant may provide sustenance or
can maintain other dependents is concerned, it has
Patna High Court CWJC No.2617 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
to be looked at 'objectively' and not 'subjectively'.
It is not for the authority considering the
application for compassionate appointment to find
out as to whether the dependent in employment is
willing to take care of other dependents or not. It
would not be his concern that the gainfully
employed sibling is actually providing sustenance
to the other dependents or not. Any argument that
the dependent in employment is not willing to
provide sustenance/maintenance to other
dependents or that the employed one is living
separately is beyond the scope and ambit of
consideration under the given scheme and policy
of the government and this Court sitting in its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India would not go into enquiring the
correctness of the facts so pleaded before the
Court. It is because the writ Court is to be
conscious of the judicial pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been
repeatedly held that a Court has no power to
ignore a provision to relieve what it considers a
distress resulting from its operation. We have
quoted paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment of
Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (supra) only to
remind us what the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
in the following words;-
"the Courts should endeavour to find out
whether a particular case in which
sympathetic considerations are to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.2617 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
weighed falls within the scope of law.
Disregardful of law, however hard the case
may be, it should never be done".
8. From bare perusal of the observations made by the
learned Full Bench of this Court, it is manifestly apparent that it
is not for the concerned authority to consider the application for
compassionate appointment to find out as to whether the
dependent in employment is willing to take care of other
dependents or not. It would not be his concern that the gainfully
employed sibling is actually providing sustenance to the other
dependents or not; all the more, any plea that the dependent in
employment is not willing to provide sustenance/maintenance to
other dependents or that the employed one is living separately is
beyond the scope and ambit of consideration under the given
scheme and policy of the government and this Court sitting in
its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India would not go into enquiring the correctness of the facts so
pleaded before the Court.
9. Now coming to the case in hand and after going
through the materials available on record, this Court finds that
there is no pleading that the employed dependent of the
deceased Government servant is not able to provide sustenance
or can maintain other dependents, which is the only ground to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2617 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
be looked at objectively.
10. Considering the admitted position that one of the
dependent of the deceased Government employee is already
gainfully employed in the Railway, as a Group D employee, as
also in view of the Government Circular and its clarification
issued by the General Administration Department referred
above along with the settled legal position, as mandated by the
Full Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is devoid of
any merit and thus hereby dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
