Rajesh Shankar, J.

I.A No. 12929 of 2025:

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 85 days occurred in filing the present appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on being satisfied with the reasons set out in the present interlocutory application, the said delay occurred in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

3. The present interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.

L.P.A No. 605 of 2025:

4. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No.3782 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the said writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent was disposed of directing the Principle Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand (appellant no. 3) to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the writ petitioner for her compassionate appointment by taking into consideration her actual date of birth as 01.03.1983 as well as considering the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 3115 of 2015 which validated the certificates and degrees issued by the Deoghar Hindi Vidyapeeth prior to 26.02.2015 and that the certificate of the petitioner was prior to the said date.

Fact of the case:

5. The writ petitioner/respondent is the wife of Late Ravindra Kumar who died in harness on 08.12.2011 while working at Jharkhand Government Press in the capacity of “Pratilipidhar”.

6. Thereafter, the writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06.07.2012, however her claim was rejected by the Central Compassionate Committee vide its minutes of meeting dated 08.12.2012 held under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand (appellant no. 2) on the ground that she was non-matriculate.

7. After passing of “Praveshika” examination (equivalent to Matriculation) in the year 2012 from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, the writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground vide application dated 20.05.2013 along with the required provisional certificate dated 15.03.2013 regarding passing the said examination. However, again the petitioner was not given appointment on the ground that her date of birth recorded in the provisional certificate was 01.03.1987, whereas on earlier occasion she had submitted the Admit Card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in the year 1996 wherein her date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1983.

8. The writ petitioner again passed Praveshika examination from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in the year 2013 and applied for appointment on compassionate ground vide application dated 06.05.2014 along with the passing certificate dated 21.03.2014 wherein her date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1983, however the same was again rejected.

9. Subsequently, the date of birth of the writ petitioner mentioned in her Provisional Certificate issued with respect to the “Praveshika” examination, 2012 got verified and corrected by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar and the writ petitioner vide letter dated 28.01.2020 requested the Under Secretary, Jharkhand Government Press, Doranda, Ranchi to give her compassionate appointment, however Under Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand rejected her claim vide letter no. 63 dated 15.06.2020 stating that she was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground as the degrees/certificates issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar were derecognized w.e.f. 26.06.2014 and no appointment could be made based on any degree/certificate issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, even if it was obtained prior to 26.06.2014.

Argument on behalf of the appellants:

10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Clause- 1 of the departmental circular dated 01.12.2015 clearly stipulates that the purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death and to alleviate the distress of the family. In the present case, since the writ petitioner herself is a family pensioner, no such hardship has been caused to the family of the deceased employee on account of his death.

11. It is also submitted that the husband of the writ petitioner had died on 08.12.2011 and a period of more than 13 years had passed on the date of passing the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025. Thus, the very basic element for grant of compassionate appointment to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant, has been lost in this case.

12. According to learned counsel for the appellants it is well settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is not a source of appointment but an exception to it and the purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate help to the family of the deceased employee on account of death of the bread earner of the family.

13. It is further contended that the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rightly passed in the year 2020 in terms of the rule applicable at that point of time, however after the subsequent decision dated 10.05.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3115 of 2015, the provisions pertaining to recognition of the degrees/certificates issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar were amended by the State Government vide letter dated 15.06.2023 but by that time her claim was not pending for consideration as the same was already rejected by the authorities.

14. It is also submitted that the learned Single Juge failed to appreciate that the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffered from delay and latches as the order of rejection dated 15.06.2020 was challenged by the petitioner after a gap of four years without assigning any reason for such delay.

15. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712.

16. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the degree issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar up to 26.02.2015 is valid in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 3115 of 2015 and as such by putting reliance to the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant no. 2 to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.

17. It is further submitted that the delay in giving compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner has occasioned due to the latches on the part of the appellants for which the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Moreover, the plea of delay and latches was never raised either at the time of rejection of her claim by the Under Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no. 63 dated 15.06.2020 or before the writ court. As such, the appellants should not be allowed to take a new ground for rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

19. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the family of the writ petitioner survived for more than 14 years after the death of the employee and as such the object of compassionate appointment has now got frustrated. It is further contended that the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment ought to have been rejected by the learned Single Judge of this court on the ground of delay and latches.

20. On bare perusal of the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Under Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department (Press), Government of Jharkhand it is evident that the reason for rejection of the writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was that the degrees/certificates issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar were treated to be not valid even though the same were issued prior to 26.06.2014.

21. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court passed in the case of W.P.(C) No. 3115 of 2015. We have perused the said judgment, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: -

                  “21. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the order/judgment as has been passed by the Full Bench of Patna High Court, is required to be followed on the ground of similarity of facts and more particularly the entire facts rest upon Govt. Order which was issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar of the time when State was unified i.e. vide order dated 11.01.1991. Further, the State of Jharkhand also adopted the said decision dated 11.01.1991 by issuing order on 03.11.2003.

22. In view thereof, this Court held that the degree of ‘Praveshika’ ‘Sahitya Bhushan’ and ‘Sahitya Alankar has got equivalence to Matriculation, Intermediate and Graduation, as decided vide order dated 11.01.1991 by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 03.11.2003, and as such, the validity of order dated 11.01.1991 will be effective up-to 26.02.2015.

23. The degrees issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, are held to be valid up-to 26.02.2015.

                  It is clarified that no benefit is to be given on the basis of degrees issued by the institution in question, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, after 26.02.2015.”

22. Thereafter the Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand issued letter no. 3475 dated 15.06.2023 stating that the degrees/certificates issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar up to 26.02.2015 would be valid for appointment and promotion. Thus, the reason assigned in the order dated 15.06.2020 for rejection of the writ petitioner’s claim was not liable to be sustained and the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant no. 2 to consider the writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

23. The learned counsel for the appellants has given much emphasis to the argument that the writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is not worth consideration on the ground of delay and latches.

24. The said ground was never taken earlier either at the time of rejection of the writ petitioner’s claim or before the writ court and for the first time the same has been raised before this court.

25. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and New Delhi & Others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

                  “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088]:

                  “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”

                  Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”

26. Thus, the reason for passing an order cannot be supplemented by filing any subsequent affidavit, rather the validity of the order must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the order itself. An order which is bad in the beginning, cannot be validated by any additional ground brought out later.

27. We are of the view that since the claim of the compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner was rejected by an order as contained in letter no. 63 dated 15.06.2020 by taking a ground that the degree issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar could not be treated as recognized even if the same was issued prior to 26.06.2014, the appellants cannot be allowed to raise a complete new ground to justify their action.

28. We have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the said case, their Lordships have held that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis due to death of the breadwinner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. It has further been held that out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to manage its basic needs, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Thus, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance. This would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.

29. The facts and circumstance of the present case is quite different from the case cited by the appellants and as such the same is not applicable in the present case.

30. On bare perusal of the record it is evident that the first application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the writ petitioner on 06.07.2012 i.e within one year from the date of death of her husband and thereafter she repeatedly made representations/applications for grant of the same, however her request was turned down by the appellants, initially on the ground that she was non-matric and thereafter on the ground of dispute with respect to her date of birth recorded in the provisional certificate of “Praveshika” examination issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. The date of birth of the writ petitioner was subsequently rectified in her provisional certificate. Thus, the writ petitioner had not committed any delay in raising claim of compassionate appointment.

31. So far as the dispute with respect to the date of birth of the writ petitioner is concerned, she herself is accepting that her actual date of birth is 01.03.1983 and in the provisional certificate issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar it was wrongly recorded as 01.03.1987 which was subsequently corrected. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the appellant no. 2 to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment by taking into consideration her actual date of birth as 01.03.1983.

32. For the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3782 of 2024.

33. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

34. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.