Raj Kamal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1404 of 2022 ====================================================== Raj Kamal Kumar son of Ram Narayan Ram, resident of Village and P.O.- Sakala Bazar, Police Station and Anchal-Karakat, District-Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Special), Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Collector, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

3.

The Superintendent of Police, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.

The Sub-divisional Officer, Sasarma, Rohtas.

5.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District-Rohtas. 6.

The Anchal Adhikari, Anchal-Karakat, District-Rohtas. 7.

The Officer-in-charge, P.S. Karakat, District-Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kanhaiya Rao, Advocate Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar (GP-4) Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking

2/7 a direction from this Court to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds to the post of Chaukidar, as his grandfather died while he was in active service, and for any other relief(s) in favour of the petitioner as deemed suitable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grandfather of the petitioner worked as a Chaukidar under Karakat Police Station, Sub-Division Bikramganj, District Rohtas, and died on 19.07.2001 while he was in active service. He further submits that the widow and the son of the deceased were not in a position to be appointed because of their age and illness, respectively. He further submits that the father of the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease which was incurable in nature. He further submits that the petitioner applied on compassionate grounds for the post well within time in the year 2009 (in the petition it is written "in the year 2002", but learned counsel submits that due to an inadvertent typing mistake, 2009 has wrongly been typed as 2002). He further submits that the petitioner possessed the necessary qualifications and eligibility for the said post. He further submits that the petitioner received a letter from the office of the Collectorate, Sasaram, in the year 2011 intimating that his

3/7 candidature had been turned down as he happened to be the grandson of the deceased Chaukidar.

4. Counsel further submits that Annexure-1 is the letter No. 1683 dated 19.11.1994 issued by the Home Department, in which Clause 3 indicates that a Nati (maternal grandson) is also entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds if the situation arises. He further submits that the said circular has not been considered at all, and the authority concerned has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the word Nati has been used in common parlance for both paternal and maternal grandsons. Therefore, he submits that a positive interpretation may be drawn, and Annexure-4, by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected, should be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that according to the Government circular, the application for compassionate appointment has to be made within five years. However, in the present case, admittedly, the death occurred in the year 2001, and the request for compassionate appointment was made in the year 2009, i.e., after a lapse of about eight years. He further submits that the

4/7 main contention of the petitioner relates to non-consideration of Annexure-1, i.e., Letter No. 1683 of 1994. He further submits that the said letter, on which the petitioner is relying, has already been removed, and in its place, a new circular has been issued by the Home Department, Government of Bihar, vide Letter No. 4668 dated 24.06.2011.

6. He further submits that paragraph 4 of the said letter categorically indicates that Letter No. 1683 dated 19.11.1994, on which the petitioner is relying, has already been removed, and therefore, there is no question of entertaining any relief for the present petitioner.

7. In light of the submissions made above, this Court finds that the order against which the petitioner is aggrieved has not been challenged by the writ petitioner in the prayer portion. It also transpires to this Court that the petitioner has relied on Letter No. 1683 dated 19.11.1994, in which compassionate appointment for a Nati has been categorically indicated in Clause 3 of the said letter.

8. For proper adjudication, it is necessary to place on record the latest Letter No. 4668 dated 24.06.2011, which is as follows:-

5/7

9. After going through the records, particularly the factual matrix, it transpires to this Court that, as per the pleadings, the petitioner is the grandson of the deceased, whose grandfather was in service in 2001 and died that year. The application for compassionate appointment was filed in 2009,

6/7 and his claim was rejected in 2011, with communication of the same also made in 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a fresh representation, on which a decision was taken in 2020, annexed as Annexure-4. It also transpires from the record that at the time of the grandfather's death in 2001, the petitioner was a minor and became major only in 2008, after which he filed the request for compassionate appointment.

10. In any view of the matter, the circular of 2011 is very clear, and in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be ignored. According to this circular, on the day when the petitioner's case was under consideration before the Appointment Committee, the circular of 1994 was no longer in existence. In addition, the cause of action had already arisen in 2011, even then, the petitioner moved only in 2022, after a lapse of about 11 years.

11. In this regard, the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari, reported in AIR 2023 SC 1467, is very clear, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the sense of immediacy is lost, consideration of the claim and grant of relief in such a case would be improper. This judgment relates to compassionate appointment. It is for this reason this Court is not inclined to grant any relief.

7/7

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.12.2025 Transmission Date NA