Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the Patna High Court dealt with an appeal filed by a woman whose father, a Class IV employee in the Animal Husbandry Department, had passed away in 2003 while still in service. She applied for a job on compassionate grounds in 2007, claiming dependency on her father. However, her application was rejected because, at that time, married daughters were not eligible for compassionate appointment under government policy.
In 2014, the Bihar Government amended its policy to include married daughters as eligible dependents for such appointments. The appellant argued that since the law now included married daughters, her application should be reconsidered. She relied on a 2015 Supreme Court judgment (Vijaya Ukarda Athor v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 3 SCC 399).
The High Court, however, held that:
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a relief meant only to help the dependents of a deceased employee tide over an immediate financial crisis.
- At the time of her father’s death in 2003 and her application in 2007, the law did not allow married daughters to claim compassionate appointment.
- The 2014 notification could not be applied retrospectively to cases where the employee had died long before the policy change.
- The appellant applied after a long delay of four years, which itself defeated the purpose of compassionate appointment.
The Court clarified that the Supreme Court decision cited by the appellant did not deal with the issue of retrospective effect of government policy. Therefore, the reliance was misplaced.
Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s earlier decision that denied relief.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For families of deceased employees: This judgment clarifies that compassionate appointment is strictly to deal with sudden financial hardship and cannot be claimed as a matter of inheritance or after a long delay.
- For married daughters: Although the 2014 policy change now allows them to be considered for compassionate jobs, the benefit is only prospective. It cannot be claimed for deaths that occurred before the amendment.
- For the government: The decision safeguards against retrospective claims that could otherwise open the floodgates for very old cases.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Issue 1: Can a married daughter claim compassionate appointment for the death of her father before the 2014 policy change?
Decision: No. The benefit of the 2014 notification is prospective only. - Issue 2: Does delay in applying weaken the claim for compassionate appointment?
Decision: Yes. The Court held that a delay of several years defeats the purpose of immediate financial relief. - Issue 3: Was reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijaya Ukarda Athor valid?
Decision: No. That case did not address retrospective application of policy.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Vijaya Ukarda Athor v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 399.
Case Title
Uma Devi @ Uma Kumari v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1018 of 2018
(in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15871 of 2010)
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 641
Coram and Names of Judges
- Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate — for the appellant
- Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12 — for the respondents
Link to Judgment
MyMxMDE4IzIwMTgjMSNO-as1kix7RtTw=
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.
