Disposed¶22

Atulya Prakash v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jun 2025CWJC/9296/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; death in harness (18.04.2021); clerk (Nazir), Haspura Block Office, Aurangabad; application dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P/2) undecided; direction to respondents to decide within 60 days and pass reasoned order; petition disposed of; Patna High Court; CWJC No.9296 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the concerned respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment (Annexure – P/2) within 60 days from receipt of the copy of the Order of this Court and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with relevant rules and laws. ¶22

Atulya Prakash Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition should be disposed of by directing the concerned respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending application for grant of compassionate appointment (Annexure – P/2) within a period fixed by the Court.

¶20

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment (Annexure – P/2) within 60 days from the receipt of the copy of the Order of this Court.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

While deciding the application, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the relevant rules and laws.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Arvind Singh Chandel, J.), by oral order dated 18-06-2025, disposed of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9296 of 2025 filed by Atulya Prakash, whose father late Dilip Thakur died in harness on 18.04.2021 while working as clerk (Nazir) in the Haspura Block Office, District Aurangabad. The petitioner's application dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure – P/2) for compassionate appointment, made with the consent of his mother, brother and sister, had remained undecided. The prayer, not opposed by the respondents' counsel, was for disposal of the petition with a direction to decide the application. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents (State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department; District Magistrate, Aurangabad; Additional Collector, Establishment, Aurangabad; Block Development Officer, Haspura Block) to consider and decide Annexure – P/2 within 60 days of receipt of the copy of the Order and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with relevant rules and laws.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9296 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Atulya Prakash son of late Dilip Thakur, resident of village and post, Dihuri, P.S. Goh, District Aurangabad

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad

¶8

The Additional Collector, Establishment, District Aurangabad

¶9

The Block Development Officer, Haspura Block, District Aurangabad

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alka Panday, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.K. Singh, AC to Government Pleader (22)

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 18-06-2025 Heard.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely late Dilip Thakur died in harness on 18.04.2021 while working on the post of clerk (Nazir) in the Haspura Block Office, District Aurangabad. The petitioner with the consent of his mother, brother and sister make an application before the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment on 05.04.2023 i.e. Annexure – P/2.

¶18

According to the counsel the said application has not been decided by the concerned respondent yet therefore, it is prayed by him that this petition may be disposed of, directing the concerned respondents to consider and decide the pending

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.9296 of 2025(2) dt.18-06-2025 2/2

¶20

application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment i.e. Annexure – P/2 as early as possible probably within any specific period fixed by this court.

¶21

The above prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.

¶22

On the basis of submissions made by counsels for both the parties, this petition is disposed of, directing the concerned respondents to consider and decide the application made by the petitioner i.e. Annexure – P/2 as early as possible proabably within 60 days from the receipt of copy of Order of this Court and pass a reasoned order in accordance with relevant rules and laws.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J)

¶25

Siddharth Soni/-

¶26

U T

Atulya Prakash v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atulya Prakash v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Kishore Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Roy Vs The State of Bihar

Chandra Shekhar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Harun Rashid Vs The State of Bihar

Chandeshwar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar