Widowed daughter's compassionate appointment claim must be reconsidered in light of specific judicial observations and dependency affidavits.

The petitioner, a widowed daughter of a deceased government employee (Late Kishori Chaudhary), sought appointment on compassionate grounds.

Previously, the petitioner had moved the High Court in CWJC No. 7243 of 2023, where a coordinate Bench, noting that she was a dependent widow daughter whose husband predeceased her father, directed the authorities to reconsider her claim in light of specific affidavits and judicial precedents.

Following this, the Deputy Collector (Estab.), Patna, issued Memo No. 2141 dated 24/07/2025, rejecting her application by stating it did not fall within the purview of General Administration Department Letter No. 16973 dated 10/12/2024.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that the authorities ignored the High Court’s previous specific observations regarding her dependency and status.

1. Whether the respondent authority's rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was in compliance with the specific directions and observations made by the High Court in the previous proceeding (CWJC No. 7243 of 2023).

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle of judicial discipline and the binding nature of specific directions issued by a coordinate Bench.

Statement identifying guidelines for compassionate appointment under the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar.

Statement on the legal status of a "widowed daughter" as a dependent eligible for compassionate grounds, as established in the High Court’s earlier order in the petitioner’s own case and the precedent of Punita Bhatt (Allahabad High Court) regarding the rights of daughters in such schemes.

The court found that the respondents failed to exercise their quasi-judicial function in accordance with the prior judicial mandate.

In the earlier round of litigation (CWJC No. 7243 of 2023), the Court had explicitly noted that the petitioner’s husband died before the employee, making her a dependent, and that her brother lived separately since 2015.

Despite the court's direction to reconsider the matter "freshly in light of the affidavit" and specific precedents, the impugned rejection order (Annexure-P/1) made no reference to those judicial observations.

The court determined that the authorities had acted on a "wrong and erroneous assumption of facts" and that the rejection was not a full compliance but a failure to follow the High Court's specific instructions to treat the petitioner as a dependent.

It set aside the Memo No. 2141 dated 24/07/2025 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Patna.

The matter was remitted to Respondent No. 5 with a strict direction to reconsider and decide the petitioner’s case in accordance with the observations made in the order dated 16.06.2025 (CWJC No. 7243 of 2023) within 60 days.