Patna High Court
Ramesh Prajapati vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 October, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2983 of 2017
======================================================
Ramesh Prajapati Son of Late Baijnath Prajapati, Resident of Village-
Mohalla-Post Office Road Raffiganj Ward No.11, PO+P.S.-Raffiganj, District-
Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, New Secretariat,
Patna.
2. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Judicature at Patna.
3. The District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, Civil Court, Aurangabad
Cum-Chairman of Compassionate Appointment Committee.
4. The Registrar, Civil Court, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, GP-27
For the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-10-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
praying for appointment on compassionate ground on account
of his father having died in harness on 8.2.2014 while
working as Daftary in the Civil Court at Aurangabad.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
2/9
died on 8.2.2014 leaving behind the petitioner and his sister.
The family was left with no source of income and the mother
of the petitioner having predeceased his father, there was no
question of any disbursement of family pension.
4. As such the petitioner filed an application on
9.7.2014
before the respondent no.3 for his appointment on
compassionate ground. The application was directed to be put
up before the Appointment Committee. As directed, the
petitioner appeared before the Committee on the date fixed
along with all the original documents.
5. The Appointment Committee of the Civil Court,
Aurangabad vide its resolution passed in the meeting held on
9.2.2015 appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground on
the post of Daftary in Class IV, subject to the approval of the
Patna High Court.
6. The petitioner not having received his letter of
appointment filed a representation before the respondent no.3
whereafter he was communicated vide letter dated 16.6.2016
of the respondents that his appointment had not been approved
by the Patna High Court and by letter dated 15.12.2015 had
been sent back to the respondent no.3 for reconsideration. It is
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
another letter dated 4.1.2016 was received from the
respondent no.2 by the respondent no.3 communicating that
the total strength of compassionate appointees should not
exceed 3% of the sanctioned strength of the cadre. Learned
counsel submitted that on the death of his father, an employee
of the Civil Court, with no source of income, the family was
living a miserable life and as such the application be allowed
and the petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground.
7. In response, it was submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents that the decision taken in the
case of the petitioner as also other applicants was transmitted
to the Patna High Court for its approval on 9.2.2015. This
Court by its letter dated 15.12.2015 declined to grant approval
to the appointment of the petitioner and two others and
directed for re-examination of their cases in light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh
Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC
138 as also to ascertain the financial condition of the
applicant. The case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the
Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 3.8.2016.
Taking note of the fact, two letters of the Patna High Court
dated 4.1.2016 and 5.4.2016 which restricts the appointment
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
on compassionate ground so as not to exceed 3% of the
sanctioned strength of the cadre in which such appointment is
to be made and also taking note of the fact that staffs already
appointed in the Judgeship of Aurangabad was more than 3%
of the sanctioned strength of the cadre, by letter dated
19.9.2016, the respondent no.2 communicated to the
respondent no.3 that the case of the petitioner along with
others had not been considered favourably. It was thus
submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the writ application be
dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and perused the material
on record.
9. The relevant facts in brief are that the father of
the petitioner Late Baijnath Prajapati who was working as a
Daftary in the Civil Court at Aurangabad passed away on
8.2.2014 while in service leaving behind one son (the
petitioner) and one daughter, his wife having predeceased
him.
10. On an application having been filed by the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
Appointment Committee of the Civil Court at Aurangabad
considered the same favourably in its meeting held on
9.2.2015 and by letter dated 19.2.2015 sent the same to the
respondent no.2 for approval.
11. By letter dated 15.12.2015, the Patna High
Court was pleased to return the recommendation of the
Appointment Committee with a request to consider the case of
the petitioner and others. This communication was followed
by another letter dated 4.1.2016 written by the respondent
no.2 to all the District and Sessions Judges of Bihar stating
therein that having considered the matter regarding
appointment on compassionate ground, the Patna High Court
has been pleased to direct that appointment on compassionate
ground be considered with a restriction that the total strength
of compassionate appointees would not exceed 3% of the
sanctioned strength of the cadre in which such appointment is
being considered.
12. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of
the minutes of the meeting of the Appointment Committee,
Civil Court, Aurangabad held on 3.8.2016. With respect to the
case of the petitioner, the Committee observed as follows :-
"The third applicant is Sri Ramesh Prajapati, a
ward of late Baijnath prajapati, Daftari. Late
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
Baijnath prajapati left behind his son Ramesh
prajapati and a married daughter. His mother
had already been died. The sister of applicant
has also claimed for her share in the death -cum-
retiral benefit of her father. Since, their shares
have not been decided by any competent
authority till the date, hence no retinal benefit
has been paid to him. He is completely in hand to
mouth condition. Being an unemployed, his
family is in penurious condition. As he has been
previously recommended for appointment on the
post of daftari, but as per Hon'ble court
direction, he may be recommended for
appointment on lowest class IV posts."
13. Though the Appointment Committee took note
of the difficult financial condition of the petitioner, however
in view of the two letters of the Patna High Court dated
4.1.2016 and 5.4.2016 which restricts the appointment on
compassionate ground not to exceed 3% of the sanctioned
strength of the cadre, once again sought guidelines from this
Court. This was turned down and communicated by the
respondent no.2 to the respondent no.3 by letter dated
19.9.2016.
14. From the facts stated herein above, it transpires
that the only ground on which the case of the petitioner has
not been considered favourably is that ten staffs having been
appointed in the Judgeship in Class IV cadre on
compassionate ground, the same being much more than 3% of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
the sanctioned strength on Class IV cadre, in view of the
decision taken by this Court and communicated by letter dated
4.1.2016, no further appointment can be made.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Bank & Ors. vs. Promila & Anr; (2020) 2 SCC 729
was pleased to hold as follows :-
"3. There has been some confusion as to the
scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed
[Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 735] the
scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be
placed before this Court for consideration, as the
High Court [Promila v. Indian Bank, 2008 SCC
OnLine P&H 2267] appears to have dealt with a
scheme which was of a subsequent date. The
need for this also arose on account of the legal
position being settled by the judgment of this
Court in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh
Kumar [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar,
(2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] ,
qua what would be the cut-off date for
application of such scheme.
4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous
judicial pronouncements of this Court, that
compassionate appointment is not an alternative
to the normal course of appointment, and that
there is no inherent right to seek compassionate
appointment. The objective is only to provide
solace and succour to the family in difficult times
and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time
when the employee passes away.
5. An aspect examined by this judgment [Canara
Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 :
(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] is as to whether a
claim for compassionate employment under a
scheme of a particular year could be decided
based on a subsequent scheme that came into
force much after the claim. The answer to this
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
has been emphatically in the negative. It has also
been observed that the grant of family pension
and payment of terminal benefits cannot be
treated as a substitute for providing employment
assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to the
scheme itself to consider as to what are the
provisions made in the scheme for such
compassionate appointment."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Coming to the facts of the instant case, while the
deceased employee/father of the petitioner died on 8.2.2014,
the petitioner filed his application on 9.7.2014 which was
considered favourably by the appointment committee of the
Civil Court, Aurangabad in its meeting held on 9.2.2015. So
far as the decision to restrict the total strength of
compassionate appointees not to exceed 3% of the sanctioned
strength of the cadre is concerned, the same came into effect
only on 4.1.2016.
17. Thus in consideration of this Court, the same
would not be applicable so far as the case of the petitioner
herein is concerned.
18. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the application filed by the petitioner is fit to be allowed.
19. The writ application is allowed.
20. The respondents are directed to appoint the
petitioner on compassionate ground on Class IV post at Civil
Patna High Court CWJC No.2983 of 2017 dt.07-10-2025
Court, Aurangabad at the earliest preferably within a period of
three months from the date of receipt/service of a copy of this
order.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 08.10.2025
Transmission Date
