Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed where the deceased employee’s original appointment was illegal and void ab initio.

The respondent’s father was appointed as a daily wager in 1987 and regularized in 1990 at a Medical College Hospital in Bhagalpur

Following the detection of large-scale irregularities in Health Department appointments, a High-Level Five-Men Committee (constituted per court orders) categorized his appointment as "illegal" in 2008

Although his termination was initially set aside by a Single Judge in 2009 and he was reinstated subject to the outcome of a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.), he died in harness on 15.04.2012

The State extended death-cum-retiral benefits under contempt pressure

His son (respondent) applied for compassionate appointment, which the State rejected based on the father's "illegal" appointment status

A Single Judge allowed the son's writ petition in 2025, holding the rejection unjustified

1. Whether the law laid down in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (holding such appointments illegal) applies to the respondent despite him/his father not being parties to those specific cases?

2. Whether the services of the deceased can be declared "illegal" posthumously without a hearing?

3. Whether extending retiral benefits creates an estoppel against the State from treating the appointment as illegal?

4. Whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment and parity with others similarly situated?

The court applied the mandate of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), which distinguishes between "regular" and "illegal" appointments

It relied heavily on State of Bihar v. Kirti Narayan Prasad (2019) and State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma (2020), which established that appointments made without sanctioned posts or due process are void ab initio and ineligible for regularization

The court invoked the principle from Rita Mishra v. Director Primary Education (1987) that service benefits spring only from valid appointments

Regarding Article 14, it applied the doctrine from Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) and R. Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO (2022), stating that there is no "negative equality" and an illegality cannot be perpetuated by claiming parity

The court reasoned that the High-Level Committee’s findings, which categorized the father’s appointment as "illegal," were expressly upheld by the Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad, making that determination a judgment in rem regarding that class of employees

It held that disciplinary or inquiry proceedings do not abate upon death if the inquiry concluded during the employee's lifetime; here, the Committee’s report was finalized in 2008 while the father was alive

The court found that the payment of salary and retiral benefits was provisional and subject to the pending L.P.A., thus it did not validate an inherently void appointment

Since the father’s entry was a "back-door" illegal appointment, no right to compassionate appointment could flow to his heirs, as such rights only stem from a lawful underlying service

Finally, the court rejected the plea of parity with one Munna Kumar, holding that even if the State erroneously granted appointment to another, the court cannot compel the State to repeat the illegality

The Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.