Shailesh Tiwari vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22405 of 2019
CNR No. BRHC011026782019
======================================================
Shailesh Tiwari Son of Gobind Pati Tiwari Resident of Village-Kalyanpur,
Jiut Chhapar,P.S.-Kalyanpur, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of BIhar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of BIhar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
4. The District Education officer, Gopalganj.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-11-2026
1. That the present Writ application has
been filed for the following reliefs:-
" For setting aside the order
passed by respondent and
communicated vide Memo No. 336
dated 07.03.2019 especially their
decision referred at Serial No. 3 directing
the decision will be applicable in case of
those, who are parties in aforesaid case
ignoring the law settled by Apex Court
and the provision introduced by
government dealing the covered cases

Patna High Court CWJC No.22405 of 2019 dt.04-11-2026
2/8
under Provision 4C (1) of State Litigation
Policy to minimize unnecessary litigation
and the further prayer with regard to
appropriate direction to concern
authority for his conversion/
regularization in regular pay scale and
provide the benefit in accordance with
the law and for the other necessary
relief/relief's on the basis of the facts
and circumstances of the case as stated
hereinafter."
2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ
petition are that the mother of the petitioner died
in harness while working as an Assistant Teacher
in the district of Gopalganj. The petitioner applied
for compassionate appointment, and his claim
was recommended by the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee, Gopalganj, in its
meeting dated 12.07.2006. His name appeared
at Serial No. 30 of the recommended list, which
was forwarded to the District Superintendent of
Education for necessary action. However, no
appointment letter was issued to him. In the
meantime, the petitioner was appointed as

Patna High Court CWJC No.22405 of 2019 dt.04-11-2026
3/8
Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 08.05.2005, and his
services were absorbed as Block Teacher with
effect from 01.07.2006 on contractual basis.
Subsequently, in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding compassionate
appointment cases recommended before
01.07.2006, the petitioner submitted
representations dated 18.06.2019 and
19.08.2019 before the District Education Officer,
Gopalganj, claiming the benefit of regular
appointment and regular pay scale. However, no
decision was taken on his representations. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities
have denied him the benefit merely on the
ground that he was not a party before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment was duly
recommended prior to the cut-off date of
01.07.2006. Therefore, he is entitled to the same
benefit as granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Patna High Court CWJC No.22405 of 2019 dt.04-11-2026
4/8
to similarly situated persons. It is further
submitted by the Learned counsel for the
petitioner that the authorities cannot restrict the
benefit of the judgment only to those persons
who were parties before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Such restriction is contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly,
the Learned counsel prays for a direction to the
authorities to extend the consequential benefits
to the petitioner.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondents. The Learned counsel
for the respondents submits that although the
petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment
was recommended by the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee on 12.07.2006, he had
already been appointed as Panchayat Teacher on
08.05.2005, and his services were absorbed as
Block Teacher with effect from 01.07.2006.
5. It is further submitted by the Learned
counsel for the respondents that, in view of the
Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment

Patna High Court CWJC No.22405 of 2019 dt.04-11-2026
5/8
and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 and the
decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in State
of Bihar Vs. Rajeev Ranvijay reported in
2010(3) PLJR 294 and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mukesh Kumar and Another Vs.
State of Bihar and Others reported in 2017
(2) PLJR (SC) 263, the benefit of regular
appointment or regular pay scale is available only
to those candidates whose claims were
recommended for Class III or Class IV posts
before 01.07.2006. The petitioner's
recommendation having been made on
12.07.2006, he is not entitled to the said benefit.
It is, accordingly, submitted that the writ petition
is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.
6. Heard the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials available on
record.
7. Having considered the rival
submissions and the materials available on
record, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim
for compassionate appointment was

Patna High Court CWJC No.22405 of 2019 dt.04-11-2026
6/8
recommended by the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee in its meeting dated
12.07.2006, i.e., after the cut-off date of
01.07.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner had
already been appointed as Panchayat Teacher on
08.05.2005, and his services were absorbed as
Block Teacher with effect from 01.07.2006.
8. The Full Bench of this Court in State
of Bihar Vs. Rajeev Ranvijay (supra) upheld
the policy of providing compassionate
appointment to the dependants of deceased
teaching and non-teaching employees in the post
of Panchayat Teacher/Block Teacher under the
relevant Rules. The said position was
subsequently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mukesh Kumar (supra) wherein it was
held that candidates whose claims for
appointment to Class III or Class IV posts had
been recommended prior to 01.07.2006 would be
entitled to regular appointment or regular pay
scale, whereas those recommended after the said
date would not be entitled to such benefit.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22405 of 2019 dt.04-11-2026
7/8
9. In the present case, the petitioner's
claim was recommended on 12.07.2006, which
was beyond the cut-off date fixed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner does
not fall within the category of beneficiaries
entitled to regular appointment or regular pay
scale under the aforesaid judgment. Merely
because his claim was subsequently
recommended, he cannot claim the benefit of the
directions issued in favour of candidates whose
cases were recommended prior to 01.07.2006.
10. So far as the challenge to Memo No.
336 dated 07.03.2019 is concerned, this Court
finds that the petitioner has failed to establish
that the restriction contained therein has
adversely affected any legal right available to
him under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. In view of the admitted date of
recommendation, no case for interference with
the impugned communication or for grant of
regular pay scale is made out.
11. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit

Patna High Court CWJC No.22405 of 2019 dt.04-11-2026
8/8
in the present writ petition and it is dismissed as
devoid of merits.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.11.2026
Transmission Date