Compassionate appointment is subject to the quota restriction in force when the employee dies.

The appellant sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a court employee, on 27 September 2016.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, noting that the 5% cap under the Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2022 would allow 8.5 posts against the Judgeship’s sanctioned Class-IV strength of 170, while 20 Class-IV employees had already been appointed on compassionate grounds.

In appeal, the appellant argued that the 3% restriction introduced on 4 January 2016 should not apply to his case.

1. Whether the restriction on compassionate appointments introduced on 4 January 2016 applied where the employee died on 27 September 2016.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition should be set aside in light of the 5% cap and the number of existing compassionate appointments.

The Court applied the restriction on compassionate appointments introduced on 4 January 2016, which was later increased to a 5% cap under the Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2022.

The judgment states no separate statutory provision or broader legal test governing compassionate appointment.

It refers to L.P.A. No. 127 of 2022 only to distinguish its facts and the consideration of the 5% cap.

The employee died after the 3% restriction had been introduced; accordingly, the Court held that the restriction governed the appellant’s claim.

The Court also upheld the Single Judge’s reliance on the 2022 Rules and found that the 5% cap, calculated against a sanctioned strength of 170, amounted to 8.5 posts, whereas 20 employees had already been appointed on compassionate grounds.

It therefore found no basis to interfere.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs; any pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.