Page 1

                       [Non-Reportable] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 3962 of 2012

Manti Devi (D) through LRs.          ……..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

State of Bihar & Ors. …..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. The admitted facts are that one Shiv Nath Mahto (hereinafter referred  

to  as  “deceased  employee”)  was  appointed  as  a  Translator-cum-Proof  

Reader with the respondent in the year 1971.  He earned certain promotions  

during  his  career  in  the  year  2007,  he  was  working  as  District  Public  

Relation  Officer.   His  normal  age  of  retirement/superannuation  was  30th  

November  2008.   However,  vide  orders  dated  29th June  2007  the  State  

Government took a decision to compulsorily retire him from service under  

the  provision  of  Rule  74 of  Bihar  Service  Code.   This  order  was  made  

effective from 30th June 2007 as  a  result  whereof,  he was relieved from  

service w.e.f. 1st July 2007. Unfortunately, he died on 20th September 2008.

1

Page 2

2. After  his  death,  his  widow Smt.  Manti  Devi  sent  a  representation  

dated 24.11.2008 stating that her husband was illegally retired from service.  

She also submitted that as there was no earning member in the family, her  

elder son be given compassionate appointment.  This representation did not  

invoke any response which forced Manti Devi to file Writ Petition in the  

High Court of Judicature at Patna.  This Writ Petition came to be dismissed  

by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 29th July 2011.  Manti Devi  

filed Intra  Court  Appeal  before the Division Bench which has also been  

dismissed by the High Court on 25.10.2011. Since Manti Devi also passed  

away thereafter, present SLP is preferred by the children of Manti Devi and  

deceased employee, challenging the judgment of the High Court.   

3. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as Division  

Bench discloses that even when the  order of compulsory retirement was  

served upon the deceased employee on the very next date, no objection was  

raised  by him till  his  demise  one  year  and three  months  later.   Learned  

Single  Judge  has  further  observed  that  on  28.12.2007,  the  deceased  

employee  has  himself  accepted  his  continued  illness,  leading  to  his  

compulsory retirement and it shows that such an order was passed in public  

interest.  It is only after his death that his widow has taken up the issue and  

under the garb on challenging the order of compulsory retirement, she, in  

2

Page 3

fact, wanted her elder son to be appointed on compassionate basis.  In these  

circumstances,  the learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief to the  

writ  petitioner  and  dismissed  the  Writ  Petition.   For  same  reasons,  the  

Division Bench has also found no merit in the appeal preferred by Manti  

Devi.

4. Before us,  the learned counsel  for  the petitioner was candid in his  

submission that the petitioner, elder son of deceased employee, wanted relief  

by  way  of  compassionate  appointment  which  was  the  main  purpose  of  

present SLP.  However, such a relief cannot be granted to a person whose  

father did not die in harness and as his death occurred after his compulsory  

retirement.  Even otherwise, on our pertinent query, we were informed that  

the elder son is about 35 years of age. By no stretch of imagination such a  

direction can be given to appoint him on compassionate basis.

5. This Special Leave Petition is rejected.

………………………………….J.       [K.S.Radhakrishnan]

………………………………….J.       [A.K.Sikri]

New Delhi, November 21, 2013

3