Compassionate appointment claims must be considered for contractual vacancies where regular posts are restructured.

The petitioner’s father, Bunnilal Yadav, was a regular employee (Security Guard/Peon) at the Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation) who died in harness on April 28, 2021.

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, but the Corporation rejected the claim on February 27, 2023, citing a 2020 restructuring.

Under this restructuring, all 19 regular posts were surrendered and replaced by 78 contractual posts, for which the Corporation claimed there was no provision for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, seeking a mandamus for appointment.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment against contractual posts created after the surrender of regular posts in the Corporation.

2. Whether the Corporation must follow the precedent set by the coordinate Bench in *Sandeep Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.* (CWJC No. 2098 of 2023) regarding similar claims for compassionate engagement.

The court primarily considered the State Government’s restructuring policy (Letter No. 979 dated 09.06.2020) which converted regular posts into contractual/deputation-based roles.

It relied on the judicial precedent established in *Sandeep Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.* (CWJC No. 2098 of 2023), which held that although regular posts were abolished, a claimant's case for compassionate consideration remains valid for future contractual vacancies if the Corporation’s policy generally accepts the principle of compassionate appointment.

The court observed that the Corporation had replaced all regular cadres with contractual posts, technically eliminating the standard avenue for "regular" compassionate appointment.

However, citing the principle of parity and the specific directions in the *Sandeep Kumar* case, the court noted that the Corporation has previously offered compassionate appointments and does not deny the applicability of the government’s compassionate policy in principle.

Therefore, even if the available posts are contractual (Source: *Non-working Corporations/Deputation*), the petitioner's dependency and the nature of his father’s service entitle him to be considered when Class IV vacancies arise.

The court reasoned that the technical change in post-category (contractual vs. regular) should not absolutely bar a candidate if the need for the post exists.

The court held that if any Class IV vacancy (such as Peon) arises and the Corporation requires it to be filled, the petitioner’s case must be evaluated based on his fitness and eligibility, irrespective of the contractual nature of the post or the source of appointment.

The decision must be taken in alignment with the relief granted in CWJC No. 2098 of 2023.