Patna High Court
Abhishek Kumar Tanti vs The State Of Bihar on 8 October, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.10 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1442 of 2021
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar Tanti, aged about 31 years, Son of Late Rameshwar Tanti,
Resident of Village and Post Office- Dahiya, Police Station- Bhagwanpur,
District- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum- the Principal Secretary, Water
Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer Floor Control and Water Drainage Department,
Gopalganj.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control and Water Drainage Circle,
Gopalganj.
5. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Siwan.
6. The District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee through its
Chairman, the District Magistrate, Siwan.
7. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 08-10-2025
The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the
appellant against the judgment dated 24.01.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1442 of 2021, whereby the
writ petitioner (appellant herein) was held to be not entitled for
compassionate appointment.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.10 of 2023 dt.08-10-2025
2/6
2. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the
appellant died in harness on 22.02.2006 while he was posted as
an Accounts Clerk in the Flood Control Division, Siwan. The
father of the appellant had performed two marriages and the
appellant is the son of the second wife. After the death of
deceased employee (appellant's father), his first wife, Urmila
Devi, filed CWJC No. 14839 of 2006 seeking pensionary
benefits of her deceased husband, in which the present appellant
was a party respondent. The said writ petition was allowed on
05.11.2007
with a direction to the respondents pay the family
pension to Urmila Devi and also to consider the application to
be made by the son of the deceased employee within two
months for compassionate appointment.
3. It is the further case of the appellant that he had
filed a contempt application, bearing MJC No. 2994 of 2011,
against non-compliance of the order of compassionate
appointment dated 05.11.2007, which was disposed of by this
Court on 05.09.2011. Thereafter, the claim of the appellant was
rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee, Siwan, vide order dated 06.11.2012, stating that
since the government employee had married a second lady
during the lifetime of his first wife, the children born out of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.10 of 2023 dt.08-10-2025
wedlock of the second marriage, are not entitled to
compassionate appointment.
4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated
06.11.2012, the appellant preferred CWJC No. 1442 of 2021
before the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the
materials on record, dismissed the writ petition on 24.01.2022
on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved thereby, the
present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant had applied for his compassionate appointment well
within time and was representing his claim before the concerned
authorities repeatedly, but, the same was rejected on 06.11.2012.
He further submits that the claim of the appellant ought to have
been considered in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Full
Bench of this Court in Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v.
Chandrashekhar Paswan & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine Pat 562, which was overlooked by the learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay
and laches.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the order of the learned Single Judge requires no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.10 of 2023 dt.08-10-2025
interference, and the learned Single judge had rightly
pronounced the judgment after considering the facts and
circumstances of the present the case.
8. The learned Single Judge after going through the
facts had observed the following. Paragraph 4 of the impugned
judgment is reproduced below:
"4. The object of compassionate
appointment is to meet immediate harness in
the family. Petitioner's family survived from
22.02.2006 to 06.11.2012 (memo No. 1565)
and even thereafter till date. The petitioner
seems to be a fence sitter. After decision
rendered by this Court cited supra, he has
opened his eyes in presenting the present
petition. Moreover, Apex Court held that
compassionate appointment is not a
fundamental right. Apex Court in the case of
State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s.
R.K.Zalpuri and others reported in AIR
2016 SC 3006, Paragraph-20 laid down
certain principles to entertain petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution. One of the
principle is delay and laches. Therefore, on
the ground of delay and laches petitioner has
not made out prima facie case to entertain
the present petition. In the light of these facts
and circumstances, petitioner is not entitled
to relief sought in the present petition."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.10 of 2023 dt.08-10-2025
9. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon
Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Chandrashekhar
Paswan & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 562,
whereby a full bench of this court has held that the children of
the second wife are to be considered for appointment on the
basis of compassionate grounds. This judgment, however, finds
no application here, as the present case has to be viewed
considering the fact that approximately 19 years have passed
since the death of the appellant's father. The object of such
compassionate appointment scheme is to meet immediate
hardship in the family, and here the appellant's family continues
to survive initially from 2006 to 2012, and further till date.
10. In our view, compassionate appointment is not a
vested right which can be claimed by the appellant. The purpose
of such scheme is that family of the deceased may not go
through financial hardship. In this case, after the death of the
appellant's father approximately 19 years have passed, and the
family of appellant continues to survive. Thus, the object of the
scheme itself is frustrated in the present case.
11. Considering the findings given by the learned
Single Judge, the facts of the case and the discussions made
above, we do not find any perversity in the order of the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.10 of 2023 dt.08-10-2025
Single Judge.
12. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the
present appeal stands dismissed.
13. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.10.2025
Transmission Date
