Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In this significant ruling, the Patna High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by a man seeking compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father, who was a government teacher. The claim was rejected on the grounds of excessive delay and the purpose of compassionate appointment being no longer relevant.

The appellant’s father, a primary school teacher, passed away in service in 2002. The appellant, who is the son of the teacher’s second wife, applied for a job on compassionate grounds in 2006—four years after the death. Simultaneously, another son (from the first wife) also applied for a similar appointment.

Over the years, both applications were delayed and led to multiple rounds of litigation. While the other son’s application was initially accepted, it was later cancelled after some documents were found forged. The appellant’s application was never accepted and was eventually rejected by the District Magistrate in 2017, citing a 2005 state government circular that bars children from a second wife from being considered for compassionate appointments.

Aggrieved, the appellant challenged this rejection in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. He then approached the Division Bench through an LPA, arguing that:

• The 2005 government circular was unconstitutional as it discriminated against children of a second marriage.
• The Supreme Court had clarified in multiple cases that such children are equally entitled under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• He relied on Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, where the Supreme Court held that the son of a second wife could not be denied compassionate appointment on that ground alone.

However, the State argued that:

• The appellant applied for the appointment four years after the death and pursued the claim for nearly 17 years.
• Compassionate appointments are intended to offer immediate relief to a family in distress due to the sudden death of a breadwinner.
• The delay defeated the core objective of the scheme.
• By 2019, the appellant was already 51 years old and clearly not in need of such urgent support.

The High Court agreed with the State. While recognizing that discrimination against children from second marriages is unconstitutional, it emphasized that compassionate appointment is not an enforceable right or a form of employment reservation. It is a narrowly tailored welfare provision meant to relieve immediate financial hardship caused by an employee’s death.

The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court rulings, including:

• General Manager, SBI v. Anju Jain — Delay and laches can defeat compassionate appointment.
• State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmad Mir — Appointments cannot be made 10–14 years after death.
• Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar — Scope of compassionate appointment is limited and must be time-bound.
• Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh — Compassionate jobs are not for those who no longer face financial crisis.

Accordingly, the Court held that despite the appellant’s legal eligibility, the long delay undermined the intent and urgency behind the scheme. It refused to send the matter back for fresh consideration.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies that even if an applicant is legally eligible for compassionate appointment (e.g., as a child from a second wife), the delay in seeking or securing such relief can render the claim invalid. The ruling underscores that compassionate appointments are not a fallback employment option but a welfare measure for families in immediate distress.

For the public, this serves as an important reminder to act promptly and follow official timelines in all government employment matters. For the government, the case reinforces the need to balance compassion with administrative efficiency and fairness.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Can a son from a second wife be denied compassionate appointment under a government circular?
  ✔️ No. The Court held such circulars violate Article 14 and cannot be enforced.
• Can compassionate appointment be claimed after 17 years of the employee’s death?
  ❌ No. The delay defeats the purpose of the scheme, which is to provide immediate support.
• Was the State justified in denying the claim due to the delay?
  ✔️ Yes. The Court agreed that the family had survived without support for 17 years and the appellant was now too old to benefit from urgent assistance.
• Did earlier Supreme Court judgments support the appellant’s right?
  ✔️ Yes, in principle. But the delay outweighed the legal entitlement.
• Should the case be remitted for reconsideration?
  ❌ No. The Court found no merit in reconsideration due to lapse of time.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Union of India and Another v. V.R. Tripathi, 2019 (1) BLJ (SC) 307

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• General Manager, SBI v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475
• State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmad Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766
• Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301
• Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85
• The Bihar State Electricity Board v. Chandra Shekhar Paswan, 2019 (2) PLJR 500

Case Title

Jawahar Lal Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Others

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeal No. 314 of 2019 (In CWJC No. 6414 of 2018)

Citation(s)

2020 (3) PLJR 146

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

For the Appellant:

• Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate

For the Respondents:

• Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey (AAG-15)

Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMzMTQjMjAxOSMxI04=-j50bwVwgIII=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.