[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Ganesh Paswan vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18705 of 2016
======================================================
Ganesh Paswan son of Late Rambriksh Dusadh Resident of village - Brorh,
Police Station - Guraru, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee,
Gaya.
3. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, District - Gaya.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tekari, District - Gaya.
5. The Circle Officer, Anchal, Gurua, District - Gaya.
6. The Officer-in-charge, Gurua Police Station, District - Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GA-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-05-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) For quashing of letter dated 06.10.2009
contained in memo no. 1325 so far this
present petitioner is concerned issued under
the signature of District Magistrate cum
Chairman, District Compassionate
Committee, Gaya and consequent letter
dated 23.08.2011 contained in memo no.
1571 issued by the Deputy Collector
(Establishment), Gaya.
(ii) For issuance of direction to the Respondent
District Magistrate Gaya for appointment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
2/10
petitioner on compassionate ground after
death his father who was Mahal Chowkidar.
(iii) For issuance direction to respondent
authority to appoint the petitioner within
stipulated period on the post of Chowkidar
upon which his father died in harness
because despite of recommendation his
application was rejected without verification
of his chool records properly and on the
basis of wrongly submitted report where he
was initially admitted."
3. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are
that the father of the petitioner was working as Mahal Chaukidar
and died in harness on 12.04.2006. After his death, the petitioner
applied in prescribed formate with full details required therein, for
appointment on compassionate ground, which was duly
recommended by the respondent-Circle Officer and the Officer In-
charge of Police Station. Thereafter, the Circle Officer vide Letter
No. 596 dated 11.10.2008, forwarded the same to the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya along with all requisite
documents, for taking necessary action. On the recommendation
made by the Circle Officer, a consideration was made by the
competent authority/body, however, without proper verification of
academic record, related to the petitioner, the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated
30.09.2009
, came to the conclusion that the educational certificate
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
provided by the petitioner is fake and on the said basis, his
application was rejected vide Memo No. 1325 dated 06.10.2009.
The petitioner received the communication with regard to rejection
of his application vide Memo No. 1571 dated 23.08.2011, issued
under the signature of the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Gaya.
Subsequent thereto, the wife of the deceased employee sent an
application to the District Magistrate, Gaya for considering the
application of the petitioner sympathetically and also by giving
reference to the notification of General Administration Department
dated 13.11.2013. The petitioner also submitted a detailed
representation before the District Magistrate on 20.12.2013,
whereby he requested the District Magistrate, Gaya to consider the
case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was admitted
initially at his village school, namely, Middle School Brorh under
Guraru Block of Gaya District on 21.01.1989 and got school
leaving certificate on 31.12.1995. From the school records, it
appears that the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 44
with his father's name and date of birth, but the case of the
petitioner was rejected without proper verification from the school
records.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
5. It is further case of the petitioner that due to
inadvertence, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as
16.03.1984 in place of 06.01.1982 and subsequently, the same was
mentioned at other places, therefore it is a mistake of the records
and on the said basis, the recommendation for appointment of the
petitioner was rejected.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mistake was due to inadvertence and the same was committed by
the then Headmaster of the school, whereby wrong date and serial
number was mentioned in the admission register of birth, which
caused prejudice to the petitioner and later on, the Headmaster
issued a certificate on 01.09.2016, whereby the details with regard
to admission and date of birth of the petitioner was given.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that due to bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner, the
family of the petitioner is suffering. The application of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was already
recommended by the authority concerned in the year, 2009 and
new notification with regard to qualification of Chaukidar/Dafadar
came in existence in the year, 2012, therefore the same is of no
relevance in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that after
death of the father of the petitioner, all the retirement benefits have
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
been given to his mother and no other person is there in the family
to look after the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner. He
submits that despite being eligible, he has not been issued the
appointment letter and his application has been rejected on
erroneous ground.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner submits
that even on 29.04.2010, the Headmaster of the concerned school
has certified that the name of the petitioner appears in the
admission register, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as
06.01.1982 and his date of admission is mentioned as 20.01.1989.
He submits that in terms of the certificate issued by the
Headmaster, the petitioner again filed an application on
31.01.2025, before the District Magistrate, Gaya with a request to
verify the school records, along with the date of birth and in
support of his contention, he also annexed the school transfer
certificate and the certificate granted by the Headmaster of the
school.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State-respondents submits that the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee, Gaya duly considered the name of the
petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
post of Chaukidar in place of his father. The committee found that
claim of the petitioner was based on forged and fabricated
educational certificate, showing him to be passed Class-VIII. He
submits that after receiving the recommendation for appointment
of the petitioner on compassionate ground from the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Tekari, Gaya, the matter was enquired through the District
Education Superintendent, Gaya with regard to the educational
certificate/certificates produced by the petitioner. The District
Education Superintendent, Gaya, upon enquiry, found that the
certificate produced by the petitioner is forged and fabricated and
he submitted his report vide Letter No. 390 dated 26.06.2009.
Considering the report submitted by the District Education
Superintendent, the District Compassionate Appointment
Committee in its meeting dated 30.09.2009, proceeded to reject the
application of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate
ground and further, directed the Circle Officer, Guraru to lodge
First Information Report against the petitioner. It has further been
submitted that the services of Chaukidar has been made as
Government Servant and on such responsible post, person like
petitioner, who tried to obtain appointment through a forged
certificate, is not fit to be appointed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
10. The learned counsel for the State-respondents finally
submits that the petitioner has not even explained the delay of five
years in approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition,
therefore, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the records, it appears that the father of the
petitioner died in harness on 12.04.2006 and the case of the
petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground was
rejected by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in
its meeting dated 30.09.2009. The same is said to have been
communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 1571 dated
23.08.2011, however the writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner on 21.11.2016 and no justification has been given by the
petitioner for the delay in filing the writ petition.
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana and
Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, in paragraph no. 2 & 6 has
held as follows:-
"6. For these very reasons, the compassionate
employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a
reasonable period which must be specified in the
rules. The consideration for such employment is
not a vested right which can be exercised at any
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
time in future. The object being to enable the
family to get over the financial crisis which it
faces at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner, the compassionate employment
cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse
of time and after the crisis is over."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Jagdish Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another reported in
(1996) 1 SCC 301, in paragraph no.3 has held that "the very
object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee
who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship
and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning
member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971,
in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said
that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long
thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it
amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a
deceased government servant which cannot be encouraged, de
hors the recruitment rules."
14. Even this Court, vide order dated 15.04.2026 passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 5387 of 2026 (Manoj Kumar Raut versus The
State of Bihar & Ors.), in paragraph nos.8 & 9 has held as
follows:-
"8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Local Administration Department
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
and Another versus M. Selvanayagam @
Kumaravelu, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 42,
in paragraph no.11 has held as follows:-
"11. It has been said a number of times
earlier but it needs to be recalled here that
under the scheme of compassionate
appointment, in case of an employee dying in
harness one of his eligible dependants is
given a job with the sole objective to provide
immediate succour to the family which may
suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result
of the death of the breadwinner. An
appointment made many years after the
death of the employee or without due
consideration of the financial resources
available to his/her dependants and the
financial deprivation caused to the
dependants as a result of his death, simply
because the claimant happened to be one of
the dependants of the deceased employee
would be directly in conflict with Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite
bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of
compassionate appointment, it is imperative
to keep this vital aspect in mind."
9. Even this Court, based on the consideration
of theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Jagdish Prasad (supra), vide its
judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 5750 of 2022 (Janki Ballabh
Versus the State of Bihar and Ors.), has
proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner
on the ground of delay and laches."
Patna High Court CWJC No.18705 of 2016 dt.12-05-2026
15. Considering the above and on the basis of the said
legal proposition, this Court is of the view that the very object of a
dependent of the deceased employee, who die in harness is to
relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress, caused to the
family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In
the present case, the death occurred in the year, 2006 and now in
2026, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for being
appointed on compassionate ground, since the appointment on
compassionate ground amounts to another mode of recruitment of
the dependent of a deceased government servant which cannot be
encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules.
16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
17. Pending application, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
