Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court has upheld the State government’s decision to reject a plea for compassionate appointment made by the son of a deceased government employee. The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the appellant, finding that the family’s financial condition did not justify the grant of such appointment under prevailing rules.

The case involved a young man whose mother was working as a Craft Teacher in a government training college. She passed away while in service in March 2013. The appellant applied for a government job on compassionate grounds, a policy meant to support families that face financial distress due to the sudden demise of a breadwinning government employee.

However, the authorities rejected his application, noting that:

• His father, also a former government employee, was already retired and drawing a pension.
• The family was also receiving a family pension after the mother’s death.
• The appellant’s elder brother was employed in the private sector.

The appellant argued that his elder brother was financially separate and not contributing to the household, and that his father’s pension was mostly spent on medical expenses due to age-related ailments. He claimed that the family’s economic condition was not strong and warranted his appointment.

However, the Single Judge of the High Court had earlier ruled that the family’s overall income and support system—combining government pension, family pension, and income from the elder brother—meant the appellant’s case did not fall under the kind of financial emergency that compassionate appointments are intended to address.

Upon appeal, a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha concurred with the earlier judgment. Citing legal precedents, the Court reiterated that compassionate appointments are not a legal right but an exception meant only for families in dire need. The mere death of a government employee during service does not automatically entitle their family members to a government job.

The Court quoted the landmark Supreme Court case Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, which emphasized that such appointments are discretionary and intended to help families in financial crisis—not as a hereditary benefit or entitlement.

Finding no illegality in the rejection, the Patna High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original decision.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies the principles surrounding compassionate appointments in Bihar and across India. It sends a clear message that these jobs are not granted as a matter of course after a government servant’s death. Instead, the family’s actual financial condition must show that they cannot sustain themselves without state intervention.

For the general public, it reinforces that compassionate appointment is not a substitute for regular recruitment. For the government, the ruling upholds a consistent and fair standard, preventing misuse of the scheme and ensuring that truly needy families get timely help.

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

• Is compassionate appointment a legal right of the deceased employee’s family?
  • Decision: No. It is a discretionary benefit meant only for families in financial crisis.
• Was the rejection of the appellant’s application justified?
  • Decision: Yes. The family had multiple sources of income and was not in financial hardship.
• Did the presence of a pensioned father and working brother disqualify the appellant?
  • Decision: Yes. Their earnings indicated that the family was financially stable.
• Was there an error in the earlier judgment by the Single Judge?
  • Decision: No. The Division Bench upheld the dismissal of the original writ petition.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138

Case Title

Nitesh Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Others

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeal No. 2185 of 2016 in CWJC No. 2337 of 2014

Citation(s)

2020 (1) PLJR 71

Coram and Names of Judges

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Jagjit Roshan — for the appellant
• Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, AC to AAG 15 — for the respondents

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMyMTg1IzIwMTYjMSNO-G7Kd0P–am1–QHq8=

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.