IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3070 of 2025

======================================================

Sujit Kumar Chaudhary Son of Late Ramdeo Chaudhary, Resident of Village-

Pahar Chak, P.S. Muffasil, District Begusarai, at present posted as Prakhand

Teacher at Utkramit Middle School, Hardiya, District Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar.

2.The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of

Bihar, Patna.

3.The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.The District Education Officer, Begusarai.

5.The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai.

6.The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment

Committee, Begusarai.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

with

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3076 of 2025

======================================================

Pankaj Kumar Son of Late Ram Chandra Sharma Resident of Village-

Bazidpur, P.S - Barh, District - Patna, at Present Posted as Nagar Teacher at

Arya Sanskritik Middle School, Malsalami, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar

2.The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of

Bihar, Patna.

3.The Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.The District Education Officer, Patna.

5.The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna.

6.The District Magistrate Cum Chairman, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

with

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5504 of 2025

======================================================

Manoj Kumar Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of village- Bagdov,

P.S. Nayagaon, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

2/29

1.The State of Bihar

2.The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of

Bihar, Patna.

3.The Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.The District Education Officer, Begusarai.

5.The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai.

6.The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment

Committee, Begusarai.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3070 of 2025)

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-08

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC-08

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3076 of 2025)

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC-09

Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate

Ms. Sushmita Sharma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5504 of 2025)

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Ms. Kumari Amrita, GP-03

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP-03

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 03-08-2026

This Court has heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma,

learned Advocate for the petitioners in all the three cases

whereas, the State is represented through Mr. Kinkar Kumar,

learned Standing Counsel No. 09, Ms. Kumari Amrita, learned

Government Pleader No. 03 as also junior counsels representing

in the matter.

2. The facts of the cases are not in dispute that they

are wards/dependents of the deceased teachers, who died prior

to coming into force of the 2006, Rules for appointment of

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

3/29

teachers, i.e. The Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment and

Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as,

“Rules, 2006”).

3. The petitioners in all the three cases have made

their applications for appointment on compassionate ground

prior to coming into force of Rules, 2006; but by one reason or

other, inter alia owing to ban imposed by the Government in

Human Resources Department vide Departmental Letter No.

2039 dated 17.11.2003 and Letter No. 626 dated 16.04.2005,

their appointments were not considered and subsequently, their

names were recommended for appointment on Class III post by

the District Compassionate Committee after 01.07.2006.

4. Consequently, the petitioners were duly appointed

as Prakhand/Nagar Teacher on fixed pay. The petitioners in

pursuant to their appointment letters joined on their respective

post. However, on being dissatisfied with the action of the State

Government in extending appointment to the post of

Prakhand/Nagar Teacher on fixed pay, contrary to their

recommendation made by the District Compassionate

Appointment Committee, the petitioners preferred writ petitions.

5. It would be worth noting here that in case of CWJC

No. 3070 of 2025, the petitioner had filed CWJC No. 13821 of

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

4/29

2010, which was disposed off with a direction to the District

Magistrate, Begusarai to take necessary decision and

communicate the outcome of such decision, whereupon, the

matter was again placed before the District Compassionate

Committee, who vide Memo No. 955 dated 06.07.2015

reiterated his earlier decision to appoint the petitioner on Class

III post, which was to be executed by the Education

Department.

6. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, when no action

was taken, the petitioner in CWJC No. 3070 of 2025 filed

another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 9882 of 2019, which

came to be disposed off with a direction to the District

Programme Officer, Begusarai, to consider the case of the

petitioner in the light of the order of the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in CWJC No. 8963 of 2018 (Chandra Shekhar Azad

& Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The petitioner also

preferred MJC No. 2511 of 2019 and while the same was

pending consideration, in the meanwhile, the District

Programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai, has come up

with an order contained in Memo No. 1908 dated 11.07.2019,

rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

7. Similarly in CWJC No. 3076 of 2025, on being

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

5/29

aggrieved with the action of the respondents preferred CWJC

No. 6146 of 2009, which also came to be disposed off with a

direction that in pursuant of a recommendation made in his

favour by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee,

his appointment be made strictly in accordance with the

Government instruction dated 17.10.2008. However, the order

of the learned Single Judge came to be set-aside by the Division

Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, which order was also

questioned before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal

arising out of SLP (C) No. 34174-34175 of 2013, which was

finally disposed off vide order dated 03.04.2017, analogously

with the case of Mukesh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,

(2017) 5 SCC 383, granting liberty to approach the State

Government for suitable reliefs, in terms with the order passed

in SLP (C) No. 29655 of 2010 (Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar & Ors.

Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.).

8. So far the petitioner in CWJC No. 5504 of 2015 is

concerned, the petitioner on being aggrieved, has preferred

CWJC No. 24351 of 2018, which was finally heard and

disposed off directing the District Programme Officer,

(Establishment), Begusarai, to consider the case of the petitioner

vide order dated 01.05.2019. However, the District Education

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

6/29

Officer/District Programme Officer never passed any order in

compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court.

9. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, Mr. Sharma,

learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the large

number of persons identical to the present writ petitioners had

approached this Court and finally the matter reached to the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4776-4777 of 2017

Mukesh (supra), which was finally heard and disposed off with

an observation that the persons, whose names were

recommended prior to 01.07.2006 are entitled to appointment on

Class III and Class IV post or will be entitled for continuation of

teacher on a regular pay scale and with respect to those, in their

favour recommendations have been made after 01.07.2006, they

have been extended liberty to approach the State Government

for suitable relief in terms of the order passed in SLP (C) No.

29655 of 2010.

10. The State Government in the aforesaid

background, after proper deliberation issued its decision to

make appointment as per the recommendation of the District

Compassionate Appointment Committee on Class III and Class

IV posts, in all the cases where government servant died prior to

01.07.2006 and they were party before the Hon’ble Supreme

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

7/29

Court in the case of Mukesh (supra) and others analogous cases.

The aforesaid decision has been taken in the light of the Memo

No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 issued by the Special Secretary,

Education Department, Government of Bihar.

11. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, the

State of Bihar aggrieved with the order passed in CWJC No.

6282 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge preferred LPA No. 1472

of 2015 (The State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Rhituraj Saraubh),

which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide

judgment/order dated 18.04.2018 and observed that the State

Government to act on the recommendation of the District

Compassionate Committee, insofar as, it concerns the

petitioners of the case, in view of the Memo No. 38 dated

12.01.2018 issued by the State Government and its Education

Department. The respondents in compliance with the order

passed by the Division Bench appointed the writ petitioners of

the concerned cases to their respective regular post of teachers

in the regular pay scale.

12. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further

submitted that with respect to some of the other similarly

situated persons, who were though appointed to the post of

Assistant Teachers under the regular pay scale vide Memo No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

8/29

120 dated 01.02.2018 by the order of the District Education

Officer, Madhepura; such order was subsequently recalled vide

Memo No. 167 dated 07.02.2018. The said order was challenged

by the employees concerned in CWJC No. 8963 of 2018

Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), where the learned Court

considering the order passed in the case of Rhituraj Saraubh

(supra) vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 has directed the

respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners

strictly taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court, especially, in view of the direction passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh (supra).

13. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further

referred various decisions passed by learned co-ordinate Bench

of this Court as well as the Division Bench in support of their

claim and contended with all his vehemence that their cases are

also fully covered with the decisions passed by the learned

Division Bench of this Court in the of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra)

and Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra).

14. Non consideration of the case of the petitioners

and/or rejection of their claim for their appointment to the

regular post of Class III, despite the admitted fact that in their

cases, the deceased employees died prior to 01.07.2006, much

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

9/29

before coming into force of Rules, 2006, the action of the

respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

15. Referring to the letter contained in Memo No. 38

dated 12.01.2018, it is submitted that the respondents have

clarified the position that in case the death of the deceased

employee took place prior to 01.07.2006 and recommendations

have been made by the District Compassionate Appointment

Committee for appointment to the post of Class III post in

regular pay scale, they ought to be appointed on the

recommended post and not on the fixed honorarium/pay. In the

case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), the learned Division Bench

has rightly observed that once the advisory under Memo No. 38

dated 12.01.2018 has been issued by the State Government, it

binds the authorities of the State for ensuring its compliance.

16. Any subsequent order modifying the earlier letter

contained in Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 or withdrawing the

same with retrospective date is per se illegal and a move to

undone the action taken by the State and its authorities, in

compliance of the order of this Court and on nullity. Hence, the

order rejecting the claim of the petitioners, under Memo no. 336

dated 07.03.2019, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in the eyes

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

10/29

of law and fit to be set-aside.

17. Per contra, learned Advocates for the State

unanimously submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Mukesh (supra) held that only those applicants, whose

cases were recommended for appointment on compassionate

ground prior to 01.07.2006 would be entitled for appointment

on the regular post in regular pay scale, and other applicants

who were appointed after 01.07.2006 will not be entitled for

relief of regular pay scale. Though liberty was extended to the

persons who were appointed after 01.07.2006 to approach the

State Government, and in some of the cases, despite the

admitted position that they were appointed after 01.07.2006,

were extended the benefit of regular pay scale, but the same is

in the humble submission of the learned Advocate for the State

is contrary to the mandate of Mukesh (supra). Besides, it is

further argued that if any illegality has been committed, the

same cannot be perpetuated. Right to Equality cannot be

claimed by the petitioners to commit another illegality, as the

Right to Equality has a positive concept.

18. The case of the petitioners are not identical to

those of Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), as in their cases, they

were duly appointed against the regular post in the regular pay

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

11/29

scale, but subsequently such orders were withdrawn and they

have been brought under the cadre of Prakhand/Nagar Teacher

on fixed pay. In such circumstances, the Court directed in the

matter not to interfere in their recommendation for appointment

to the post of Assistant Teacher in regular pay scale. In the light

of the aforesaid decision, the State under compelling

circumstances, took a decision to extend the benefit of regular

pay scale.

19. It is further argued that after coming into force of

Rules, 2006, no appointment could be possible against a regular

vacant post of Assistant Teacher, which is a dying cadre. The

appointments of the petitioners were only possible to the post of

Prakhand/Nagar Teacher in the light of Rule 10 of the Rules,

2006; which have been done in the case of the petitioners. The

claim of the petitioners are said to be unjustified and contrary to

the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh

(supra).

20. This Court has carefully heard the learned

Advocates for the respective parties and also meticulously

perused the decisions referred hereinabove. The facts are not in

dispute and it do not require any further deliberation. The only

question for consideration before this Court as has arisen as to

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

12/29

whether the claim of the petitioners are similar to those of the

said identically situated persons. In their cases, admittedly the

recommendation for their appointment against the regular post

in regular pay scale was made after 01.07.2006. Summingly,

they were allowed appointment against a contractual post in

fixed pay scale, but on challenge, they ultimately succeeded,

and in their cases, the State authorities have accepted their

recommendations and allowed their appointment to the regular

post in the regular pay scale.

21. It is trite law that the persons have no legal right

to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, as these

appointments are not a source of recruitment and they are made

to provide succor to a family of employee who died in harness.

However, the same is possible if any rules or any scheme is

formulated in this regard. It is not in dispute that in the case at

hand, the claim of the appointment of the petitioners is to be

considered in the light of the Rules, 2006; which categorically

provides appointment on the post of Prakhand Teachers,

Panchayat Teachers and Nagar Panchayat Teachers etc., on a

fixed pay in case of death of the employee, who died in harness.

22. The claim of the petitioners are mainly based on

the premise that once the deceased employee died prior to

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

13/29

01.07.2006, their cases ought to be considered, in the light of

the rules applicable with respect to compassionate appointment

at the time of death of the employees and not the date on which

recommendation is made. The recommendation for appointment

on compassionate grounds is a fortuitous act and thus, in no

circumstances, it governs the fate of the petitioners. Moreover,

in the case of the petitioners, even when the recommendations

were made for appointment against the regular post in regular

pay scale, the same has not been accepted by the State and its

authorities.

23. The dispute involved in the present cases as raised

in various cases, including in the case of Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar

(supra) and Viswanath Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar, CWJC

No. 7218 of 2007. However, when the matter has later on

reached to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh

(supra), the Hon’ble Court has given a quietus to such dispute

by holding as follows:-

“3. By the impugned judgment,

a Division Bench of the High Court

correctly held that the appellants have no

legal right to seek appointment on

compassionate grounds. Compassionate

appointments are not a source of

recruitment and they are made to provide

succour to the family of an employee who

dies in harness. In the State of Bihar

compassionate appointments are

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

14/29

governed by instructions issued by the

Government. Some of the appellants were

recommended for appointment to Class

III posts on a regular basis by the District

Compassionate Committee. However,

they were appointed as Prakhand

Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar

Shikshaks, etc. on a fixed pay. The

appellants could not have been appointed

on a fixed pay and they are entitled for

appointment to either on Class III or

Class IV posts on regular basis or

payment of regular pay scale in the posts

of as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat

Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. in which

they are working at present. Some of the

appellants who were recommended for

appointment to Class III posts but were

appointed as Prakhand

Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar

Shikshaks, etc. on fixed pay are similarly

situated to Vishwanath Pandey and they

are entitled to be appointed on a regular

pay scale.

4. The other appellants who

were appointed after 1-7-2006 are not

entitled to the relief granted to those who

were recommended for appointment to

Class III or Class IV posts prior to that

date. A Full Bench of the Patna High

Court in State of Bihar

v. Rajeev Ran

Vijay Kumar [State of Bihar v. Rajeev

Ran Vijay Kumar, held that the

dependants of the deceased government

employees do not have a legal right to be

appointed in government posts. Their

appointments on compassionate grounds

shall be in accordance with the Bihar

Panchayat Primary Teachers

(Appointment and Service Conditions)

Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Rules”) which came into force w.e.f.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

15/29

1-7-2006. Rule 10 of the said Rules

provides for employment on

compassionate grounds to the dependants

of teaching/non-teaching employees

against available vacancies of Panchayat

Teachers/Block Teachers/Prakhand

Teachers, etc. Such appointments can be

made only on a fixed pay by the

committee constituted under the Rules.

5. The appellants who have not

been recommended for appointment to

Class III or Class IV posts prior to 1-7-

2006 are not covered by Vishwanath

Pandey case . On the other hand, they are

squarely covered by the judgment of the

Full Bench of the Patna High Court. They

are not similarly situated to those who

were recommended for appointment to

Class III posts prior to 1-7-2006. The

appellants, who were appointed after 1-7-

2006, the date on which the Rules came

into force, are not entitled to claim

appointment on regular pay scales. It is

relevant to note that the judgment of the

Full Bench of the High Court of Patna

was challenged before this Court. The

said SLP was withdrawn with liberty

granted to the petitioners therein to

approach the Government for suitable

relief.”

24. On plain reading of the aforesaid decision, it is

imperative that it has left no room for any confusion that in

cases where the recommendations was made prior to

01.07.2006, would entitle the applicant to a Class III or Class IV

post on regular basis or for continuance as teacher in a regular

scale but, at the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

16/29

extended liberty to those persons, in whose cases their

recommendations were made after 01.07.2006 to approach the

State Government for suitable relief in terms of the order passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the S.L.P. preferred by the

writ petitioner Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar (supra). It is only such

observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which gave birth to

the advisory issued by the State Government in the Department

of Education under Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018.

25. The aforenoted Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018

was subjected to consideration by the learned Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), in LPA No.

1472 of 2015, where the Court in no uncertain terms held that

such resolution is loud and clear and concludes that in case the

death of a Government teacher has taken place prior to

01.07.2006 and recommendation has been made by a competent

District Compassionate Committee for appointment of his

dependent against a regular post in a regular pay scale under the

Government, then that recommendation has to be acted upon

and the appointment has to be provided against a regular Class

III or Class IV or against the post of a teacher against a regular

pay scale. It would be worth benefiting to quote the relevant

paragraphs which would, in the opinion of this Court, would

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

17/29

certainly guide to reach a fair and final conclusion in the matter.

“A cursory glance to the

advisory issued by the Education

Department at paragraph 1, would leave

no room for any confusion that a

conscious decision has been taken by the

State Government in consideration of the

cases of present kind in which deaths of

teaching/non-teaching employees had

taken place prior to 1.7.2006 to resolve

that in case the District Compassionate

Committee makes a recommendation in

case of a Government teacher deceased

prior to 1.7.2006 for appointment of his

dependents on Class III or Class IV or for

appointment against the post of a teacher

then the appointment of the dependant

has to be made in terms of the

recommendation of the District

Compassionate Committee against a

regular post and against a regular pay

scale. The resolution is loud and clear

and concludes that in case the death of a

Government teacher has taken place

prior to 1.7.2006 and recommendation

has been made by a competent District

Compassionate Committee for

appointment of his dependent against a

regular post and against a regular pay

scale under the Government, then that

recommendation has to be acted upon

and the appointment has to be provided

against a regular Class III or Class IV or

against the post of a teacher against a

regular pay scale.

In our opinion, this resolution

puts at rest all speculations and all

disputes and in fact renders this appeal

infructuous for once the Education

Department itself has acted on the liberty

of the Supreme Court to clarify the issue,

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

18/29

this contest is rendered academic.

Another interesting aspect of the matter

which we need to record is, the affidavit

of the Principal Secretary of the

Education Department filed on 11.4.2018.

Now even though he admits to issuance of

the notification dated 12.1.2018 in the

light of the order passed by the Supreme

Court in the case of Mukesh (supra) and

even though he admits to revisit the issue

of compassionate appointment in the light

of the direction issued in C.W.J.C.No.

560/2015 but yet he does not shoulder the

responsibility of taking this case to its

logical conclusion in the light of his own

clarification dated 12.1.2018 qua the

recommendation of the District

Compassionate Committee, Patna.

For the reasons so discussed,

we are certainly not persuaded with the

argument of Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned

AAG-4, to interfere with the opinion

expressed by the learned Single Judge

rather the advisory bearing memo no. 38

dated 12.1.2018 of the State Government

in its Education Department binds them

to act on the recommendation of the

District Compassionate Committee,

Patna dated 30.10.2006 in so far as it

concerns these petitioners and we would

remind the Principal Secretary, Education

Department of the time stipulated in the

order of the learned Single Judge which

continues to binds him for ensuring its

compliance and for taking the matter to

its logical conclusion.

In result, the Letters Patent

Appeal is dismissed with no order as to

costs.”

emphasis supplied

26. Identical issue has also come up for consideration

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

19/29

before another Division Bench of this Court in Chandra

Shekhar Azad (supra), on a reference made by a Bench of this

Court, when it expressed its difficulty in accepting the

contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that once

the post of Assistant Teacher in regular cadre is dying cadre, in

view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of State of Bihar & Ors. versus Bihar Secondary Teachers

Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 301, it

cannot be enhanced by allowing the persons to be appointed

against such post of Assistant Teacher, and thus finding it

difficult to accept the judgment rendered by the different Bench,

referred the matter to a larger Bench to consider the following

issues, which are extracted hereinbelow:-

“17. It appears that in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Bihar Secondary Teachers

Struggle Committee (supra), the learned

Writ Court expressed its difficulty in

accepting the contention of learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the

addition to the dying cadre is permissible.

The learned Writ Court took a view that

the strength of the cadre which is dying

cannot be enhanced and since the earlier

decision was rendered by this Court

relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Division Bench, in view of the

pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex

Court now, the cadre of Assistant Teacher

is a dying cadre, therefore, the basis of

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

20/29

the order of this Court requires

reconsideration. The learned Writ Court

therefore, expressed its desire to refer the

matter to a larger Bench to consider the

following issues:—

1. “Whether the post of Assistant

Teacher is a Dying Cadre after

2006?

2. Whether the Court can induct any

teacher in Dying Cadre after

2006?

3. Whether the petitioners, who were

regularized pursuant to the

judgment of the Division Bench on

declaration of law by the Apex

Court, can claim that the judgment

inter-party is binding and

therefore, they have right to

continue on regular post of

Assistant Teacher on

compassionate ground

notwithstanding the post of

Assistant Teacher is a Dying

Cadre?

4. Whether the compassionate

appointment against any Dying

Cadre is permissible?

5. Whether the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of State of Bihar

v. Bihar Secondary Teachers

Struggle Committee (Supra) is

settler on the point that the cadre

of Assistant Teacher is a Dying

Cadre and applies to the case of

the present petitioners.

6. In addition thereto, the larger

Bench has to consider the

judgment of the Apex Court which

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

21/29

was the basis for taking decision

dated 19.07.2019 by the

respondents, as contained in

Annexure-16 to the writ petition.”

27. The learned Division Bench while answering the

questions referred hereinabove primarily held that after coming

into force of Rules for Appointment of Teachers 2006, the cadre

of Assistant Teacher is a dying cadre. However, with respect to

the second question, it is observed that if the equity, justice and

conscience requires a constitutional Court to direct the State

Government to induct one as a teacher in dying cadre, it may be

done, and there cannot be made any bar on the exercise of

constitutional power of the Court in issuing such direction in the

given facts and circumstances of the case. The issue number

four which is important for the present lis; the learned Division

Bench has answered that in terms of mandate of the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra),

appointment on compassionate ground in the dying cadre of

Assistant Teacher was permissible only in the cases where

recommendation for appointment was made by the committee

prior to 01.07.2006. But in view of the liberty granted to take a

decision in respect of those, whose cases had been

recommended after 01.07.2006, if the State Government took a

decision vide Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 to appoint those

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

22/29

persons, who were wards of the Government Teachers, and they

died prior to 01.07.2006, and by virtue of such decisions, those

persons have already been appointed, there is nothing on the

record to show that it was a result of a wrong understanding of

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

28. The learned Division Bench further while

negating the stand of the State that the cadre of the Assistant

Teacher is a dying cadre and, as such, no further appointment

could be made on such posts categorically answered that such

argument is not available with the State Government and would

not apply to the facts of the present case. Once such plea of

dying cadre was raised in the case of the Bihar Secondary

Teacher Struggle Committee & Ors. (supra) by way of a

submission only to contest the pay of equal pay for equal work

for Niyojit Shikshak. Finally, while answering the question

number six with respect to application of departmental Letter

No. 336 dated 07.03.2019, as well as Letter contained in Memo

No. 944 dated 19.07.2019, the Court held as follow:-

“33. A bare reading of

Annexure ‘16’ would show that the same

has been issued in the light of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Mukesh (supra). It is true

that in the case of Mukesh (supra) the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only

those applicants whose cases were

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

23/29

recommended for appointment on

compassionate ground prior to

01.02.2006 would be entitled for

appointment on the regular post in

regular pay-scale and the other

appellants who were appointed after

01.07.2006 will not be entitled for relief

of regular pay-scale but at the same time

liberty was granted to those appellants to

approach the State Government for

suitable relief in terms of the order passed

in S.L.P. (c) No. 29655 of 2010 as noticed

above. In S.L.P. (C) No. 29655 of 2010

which arises out of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the

case of Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar (supra).

In the case of Rajeev Ranvijay Kumar

(supra) the State Government took a plea

that if the appellants withdraw the

appeal, the State would be considering

their cases keeping in view the facts and

circumstance of the each case. In view of

that statement of the State, Rajeev Ran

Vijay Kumar and others, who were the

petitioners/appellants, withdrew the

Special Leave Petition with liberty to

move the authorities concerned.

Thereafter, the State respondents

considered their cases and appointed

them as Assistant Teacher in the cadre.

Therefore, the whole reading of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Mukesh (supra) would show

that by granting liberty these petitioners

were also placed in the same position as

Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar (supra) and it

was open for the Government to consider

their cases. Under these circumstances, if

the State Government considered their

cases and granted them the benefit of

compassionate appointment as Assistant

Teacher and upon reconsideration once

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

24/29

again pursuant to the judgment of this

Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8963 of 2018 if the

petitioners have been recommended for

appointment as Assistant Teachers in the

cadre, by taking a plea that it was result

of misunderstanding and an exercise in

violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court as contained in Annexure ‘16’

to the writ application, the petitioners

cannot be ousted from the cadre.

29. A bare meticulous reading of the above referred

decision in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), it is

imperative that the learned Division Bench in sum and

substance categorically held that since it was open for the

Government to consider their cases in the light of the liberty

extended by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh (supra),

as well as Rajiv Ranvijay Kumar (supra), and under these

circumstances, if the State Government considered their cases

and granted them the benefit of compassionate appointment as

Assistant Teacher, now they cannot be allowed to take a plea

that it was a result of misunderstanding and exercise in violation

of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

30. This Court has also come across various other

decisions, including the decisions rendered in the case of

Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra), the

copies of which have been brought on record. In consequence

thereof, the petitioners of those cases have been appointed

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

25/29

against the regular post in regular pay scale.

31. The Court time and again has cautioned the State

and its authorities while reiterating the settled principle that

equals must be treated equally, and if persons similarly placed

are treated differently without any rational, it would amount to

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If two sets of

employees stand on the same footing, in terms of the date of the

death of the deceased employees, the date of their

recommendation and their eligibility and applicability under

statutory rules, besides the identical liberty extended by the

highest Court of the land, the State cannot in the opinion of this

Court, extend a benefit to one group and deny it to the another

group without demonstrating a valid distinction. Equality does

not allow selective or partial implementation of policy or the

advisory taken by the State, as has been done while issuing

Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018, extending liberty to those in

their cases, the recommendations have been made even after

01.07.2006, and thus it has rightly been held by the learned

Division Bench in the case of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra) that

such letter binds the State authorities for ensuring its

compliance and for taking the matter to its logical conclusion, in

the light of the principle discussed in the rulings.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

26/29

32. The State being a model employer is expected to

show fairness in action. In Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India &

Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354, the Apex Court has observed that as a

model employer, the Government must conduct itself with high

probity and candour with its employees. It would be worth

benefiting and opposite at this stage to reproduce paragraph no.

65 of the decision, while the Court emphasizing the role of State

as a model employer in case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika &

Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 516, has

observed as follows:-

“65. We have stated the role of

the State as a model employer with the

fond hope that in future a deliberate

disregard is not taken recourse to and

deviancy of such magnitude is not adopted

to frustrate the claims of the employees. It

should always be borne in mind that

legitimate aspirations of the employees

are not guillotined and a situation is not

created where hopes end in despair. Hope

for everyone is gloriously precious and a

model employer should not convert it to

be deceitful and treacherous by playing a

game of chess with their seniority. A sense

of calm sensibility and concerned

sincerity should be reflected in every step.

An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and

when the employees are absolutely sure

that their trust shall not be betrayed and

they shall be treated with dignified

fairness then only the concept of good

governance can be concretised. We say no

more.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

27/29

33. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh &

Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 118, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

significantly ruled that the main concern of the Court in such

matter is to ensure with the rule of law and to see that the State

and the executive act fairly and give a fair deal to its employees

consistent with the requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

34. In the light of the aforesaid deliberation and

discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the decision

dated 07.03.2019 contained in Letter No. 336 and any other

consequential letter debarring the cases of identically situated

persons, with those of the petitioners, who have been appointed

against regular post in regular pay, irrespective of their

recommendation have been made after 01.07.2006, by

exercising the liberty granted to the State in Mukesh (supra), the

same is wholly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory besides such

action does not withstand the test of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. The authorities must not forget that

recommendation by the District Compassionate Committee is an

administrative and fortuitous act. Hence, there may be various

reasons depending upon the facts of each and cases, which may

lead to delay in making recommendation and for which, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

28/29

wards and dependent of the deceased employee cannot be

penalized. It is in this premise, the State was extended the power

to do justice, with those persons.

35. In view of the reasons disclosed hereinabove, this

Court is of the opinion that the cases of the petitioners are also

identical to those of Chandra Shekhar Azad (supra) and

Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), in whose favor, pursuant to the order

of this Court, the State Government and its authorities have

taken a decision to extend the benefit of regular pay scale and,

as such, the petitioners are also entitled to get similar treatment

with those of the petitioners of the said case.

36. Accordingly, this Court directs the Additional

Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,

Patna, as well as the Director, Primary Education, Government

of Bihar to consider their cases afresh by treating at par with

those of the cases of Rhituraj Saraubh (supra), Chandra

Shekhar Azad (supra), and extend all the consequential benefits,

including the regular pay scale, as has been given to them,

preferably within a period of three months from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order.

37. The impugned orders by which the claim of the

petitioners have been negated on the ground of dissimilarity are

Patna High Court CWJC No.3070 of 2025 dt.03-08-2026

29/29

hereby set aside.

38. All these writ petitions stand allowed.

39. The parties shall bear their own cost.

shivank/sumit-

(Harish Kumar, J)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE NA

Uploading Date 04.08.2026

Transmission Date NA