IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.931 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11982 of 2006 ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Yadav .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gyan Shankar Mr. Brajesh Kumar Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. (AAG3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 5 03-02-2012 It is unfortunate that actual order passed by this court on 5-12-2011 whereby this appeal was dismissed has been recorded due to inadvertent error, in the order sheet of LPA no. 946 of 2010. That appeal was listed on the same date below this appeal and hence, the aforesaid error took place. We find that prayer for adjournment was actually granted in LPA no. 946 of 2010 but that order passed on 5-12-2011 itself has been recorded in the order sheet of this case. After hearing the parties who are in agreement about the aforesaid facts, the order recorded in this appeal on 5-12-2011 is recalled and is replaced by the following order:- Patna High Court LPA No.931 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012 2 / 4 2 “Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The writ Court, by the order under appeal dated 12th April 2010 has dismissed the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 11982 of 2006. The appellant/writ-petitioner claims compassionate appointment on account of death of his father on 10th July 1998, while in Government service under the State of Bihar. The Rules or the scheme provided for a limitation of five years for applying for compassionate appointment after the death of a Government servant. Initially the elder brother of the petitioner applied for such appointment. His case was recommended by the District Compassionate Committee in 2001 but for some reason the appointment could not materialize till elder brother of the appellant died on 16th November 2005. On attaining majority, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment in January 2006. That application was rejected on the ground that it was beyond the period of 5 years from the date of death of appellant’s father which is the maximum period, as per policy decision of the State Government. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patna High Court LPA No.931 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012 3 / 4 3 Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar (2006)9 SCC 195 for submitting that if on the date of consideration of the application, the applicant fulfills qualification for compassionate appointment then his claim should not have been rejected by the authorities. The Apex Court found that the authorities had sat over the matter for a long period of 6 years and the reason given by the authorities for rejection was incorrect because at the time of rejection of the application, he had become eligible for appointment. On these factual considerations, without going into the issue whether the application was made beyond the maximum period or not and without considering various judgment of the Apex Court on the relevant issues, the relief was granted to the applicant of that case. The writ Court has considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994)4 SCC 138 for coming to a correct conclusion that compassionate employment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period, which have been specified in the Rules as five years, for making compassionate appointment. In that case the Supreme Court had clarified that the appointment on compassionate ground is not an offer of Patna High Court LPA No.931 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012 4 / 4 4 post, but the purpose is to meet the immediate financial crisis due to the death of the sole bread earner in the family. In subsequent judgment, the Apex Court has clarified while dealing with the revised scheme of State Bank of India to grant only compensation in place of compassionate appointment, that there is no vested right in any one to claim compassionate appointment and the rights arise only under the scheme framed for the purpose. That view has been expressed in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar, reported in 2010(2) BBCJ IV 353. In our considered view, the writ Court has adopted a correct approach and its decision requires no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” This order will be deemed to have been passed in this case on 5-12-2011 BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)