Employment of Family Member in Government Service Justifies Denial of Compassionate Appointment if Income Suffices for Dependents

The petitioner’s father, Binod Sharma, a Hawaldar in the Bihar Special Armed Police (BSAP-8), died in harness on March 10, 2016, leaving behind a widow and three children

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, claiming that although his elder brother was employed, they had partitioned in 2014 and the brother lived separately, leaving the petitioner and his mother with no income

An initial rejection by the District Compassionate Committee in 2017 led to a previous writ petition (CWJC No. 8149 of 2018), where the High Court directed the respondents to reconsider the case in light of the Full Bench judgment in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. The State of Bihar

Upon reconsideration, the District Compassionate Committee, Begusarai, again rejected the application on July 28, 2023

The petitioner challenged this rejection and the subsequent order of the Commandant dated August 31, 2023

1. Whether the respondents failed to comply with the legal principles established in the Full Bench judgment regarding the financial sufficiency of the family for compassionate appointment

2. Whether the salary of the petitioner’s elder brother, working as a Jail Police Warden, was sufficient to justify the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner

The Court primarily considered the principles governing compassionate appointment as clarified in the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Niraj Kumar Mallick v. The State of Bihar Ors. (2018 (2) PLJR 951), which mandates that the authorities must examine whether the income of an already employed family member is sufficient for the maintenance of all dependents of the deceased employee

The Court examined the findings of the District Compassionate Committee and observed that the Committee had specifically investigated the income of the petitioner’s elder brother

It was discovered that the brother was employed as a Constable (Jail Police Warden) drawing a salary in the scale of 5200-20200 with a grade pay of 2000

The Committee, consisting of seven high-ranking district officials, evaluated this income against the family structure, which included the petitioner and his widowed mother according to the dependency certificate

The Court found that the Committee had applied its mind to the "sufficiency" test required by law and concluded that the brother's salary was indeed adequate for the sustenance of the dependents

Consequently, the Court held there was no illegality in the administrative decision

It held that the District Compassionate Committee had validly rejected the claim based on the sufficient income of the elder brother

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court directed the return of original records to the State