Patna High Court
Gunjan Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7535 of 2019
======================================================
Gunjan Kumar Singh Son of Late Kapildeo Singh Permanent R/O-Vill-
Ladanpur, P.O. and P.S.-Amirganj, Distt-Nalanda (Bihar, Presently residing at
Batam Bazar Bara Akhara, New Bihari Girls School, P.O.-Batam Bazar, P.S.-
Sadar, Distt-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Transport, Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator,
Parivahan Bhavan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The Administrator, The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan
Bhavan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
4. The State of Jharkhand Jharkhand
5. The Secretary cum Transport Commissioner, FFP Building, HEC Parishar,
Dhurwa Ranchi
6. The Additional Chief Secretary, Transport Department, FFP Building, HEC
Parishar, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
7. The Divisional Manager, Road Transport Corporation Department, Ranchi
8. Depot Superintendent, Transport Department, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandra Shekhar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Smt.Anuradha Singh, SC 21
Ms. Shatabdi Sinha, AC to SC 21
For the Jharkhand : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For the BSRT : Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction upon the respondents to declare him entitled for
compassionate appointment on account of untimely death of his
father on 01.01.2008, while working as Conductor under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7535 of 2019 dt.07-05-2025
2/5
Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand and further
to direct the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for short
'BSRTC') to appoint him on any suitable post on compassionate
ground.
3. Referring to the averments made in the writ petition,
learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the father of
the petitioner was duly appointed on 30.01.1973 as a Conductor
in BSRTC at Hazaribagh and died in harness on 01.01.2008 on
account of an accident while he was going to attend his duty.
Subsequent to the death of his father, the mother of the
petitioner submitted all the documents for death-cum-retiral
benefits. However, despite all her persuasions, no heed was paid
and under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner
approached to the Hon'ble Court of Jharkhand vide W.P.(S) No.
599 of 2012, which finally came to be disposed of on 02.04.12
with a direction to the Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand to
consider the representation and decide the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment by passing a speaking
order. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the representation of
the petitioner came to be rejected vide Memo No. 431 dated
16.05.2014
, which order was further put to challenge in W.P.(S)
No. 4514 of 2014. On account of preliminary objection raised
Patna High Court CWJC No.7535 of 2019 dt.07-05-2025
by the BSRTC and the submission being made that the
erstwhile employee of the BSRTC could not be absorbed in
service under the Government of Jharkhand since he had
already died, liberty was given to the petitioner to avail the
remedy as available under the law; hence the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further
contended that because of the recalcitrant attitude of the
authorities of the BSRTC, the petitioner has been deprived from
his rightful claim for appointment on compassionate ground as
the matter is kept lingering since 2008 till date.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3. Categorical averments have been made
that keeping in view the bad financial condition of the BSRTC,
no compassionate appointment is being extended to the
dependents of any deceased employee. The situation is even so
worsen as no regular appointment is being made in the
Corporation since long. It has also been apprised to this Court
that the Committee constituted pursuant to the direction of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7290/1994 (The State
of Bihar & Ors. vs. Surajdeo Singh & Ors.) has also submitted
a report regarding worsen economical condition of the BSRTC.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7535 of 2019 dt.07-05-2025
It has further been contended that the petitioner after having
exhausted his remedy before the learned Jharkhand High Court,
approached this Court; all the more the BSRTC is not at all
liable to make compassionate appointment on account of its
financial condition.
6. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of
the learned Advocate for the petitioner and also the specific
averments of the BSRTC that the Corporation is not in a
position to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment; as
also the very object of the compassionate appointment is to
give immediate succor to the bereft family, whose bread earner
died in harness, leaving behind the entire family in penury,
coupled with the fact that the matter is of 2008 and more than
sixteen years have been elapsed, this Court does not find any
reason or occasion to interfere in the writ petition.
7. It is the settled proposition of law that "The
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule.
Normally, an employment in the Government or other public
sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come
forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in
consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of
competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public
Patna High Court CWJC No.7535 of 2019 dt.07-05-2025
office. This general rule should not be departed from except
where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the
sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because
of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the
breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over,
there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of
appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the
interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14"
[vide: State of J.& K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006)
5 SCC 766].
8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the
writ petition stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 08.05.2025
Transmission Date
