Satish Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III ------ 04/ 17.11.2025 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a. “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Direction(s) in the nature of “mandamus” commanding respondents to adjust the petitioner as an assistant in the Secretariat Cadre from the appropriate date or at least from the date on which the post of assistant was vacant (after the appointment of the petitioner) or at least from the date the petitioner was eligible for adjustment in the secretariat cadre in the unrevised pay scale of 4000-6000/-. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Direction(s) in the nature of “Certiorari” letter dated for quashing 20.02.2014 (Annexure-6 series, Page no.37- 38) under the signature of the Director (Administration) Resource Development Department and letter no. Human 1 1600 dated 28.08.2014 (Annexure-6 series, Page no.37-38) under the signature of Director (Administration) Human Resource Development Department. c. For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Direction(s) commanding upon the concerned respondents to pay the difference of salary to the petitioner as the same has been deprived sans considering the recommended by the Central Compassionate Committee on the pay scale of 4000-6000/-. d. For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Direction(s) commanding upon the concerned respondent to provide all the consequential benefits arising out from the continuation of service till today.” petitioner has

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. The petitioner’s father was working as Assistant in Secretariat Cadre, posted at Human Resources Development Department and died in harness in the year 2001. The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment and was recommended for appointment as Assistant (Grade-III) in 2002. However, he was not appointed to the Secretariat Cadre because no vacancy was available. After two years i.e. in 2004, the government decided to appoint him in the Divisional Cadre instead, and he accepted the post of Lower Division Clerk in 2005, as per him, due to financial hardship. He was assured that he would be shifted to the Secretariat Cadre when a vacancy arises.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that despite multiple vacancies and recommendations, the petitioner was neither adjusted to the Secretariat Cadre nor given the higher pay 2 scale. He further submits that several other persons were adjusted in the Secretariat Cadre in different Departments but the petitioner has not been adjusted even though the vacancy existed 2008 afterwards.

5. The learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed in the Divisional Cadre because more than two years has lapsed after Compassionate Appointment Central Committee’s recommendation. He further submits that compassionate appointment does not guarantee a specific Post or Cadre. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family and not to ensure a particular Cadre or pay scale. He further submits that the petitioner voluntarily accepted the Divisional Cadre post without protest, the petitioner cannot now claim a right to a different cadre after a long time.

6. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is a case where the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on a particular Cadre. So far as the law with regard to the compassionate appointment is concerned, it is well settled that the compassionate appointment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole objective to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to meet the 3 sudden crisis occurred in a family. It is necessary to quote para-11 of the said judgment- “11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a)… b)… c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress.” Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, on the point of delay, at para-35 has held as follows:- appointment compassionate “35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from compassionate source. Granting appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 4 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.”

8. Thus, the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family and not to ensure a particular Cadre or pay scale. I find that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the Divisional Cadre post without protest and as the petitioner has already joined the post of Lower Division Clerk, the financial crisis has been resolved and the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been achieved. Further, now twenty years have passed after the petitioner had joined the aforesaid post. Since a long time has lapsed and once the right is consummated, any further or second consideration for higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 17th November, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.) 5