Manoj Kumar Raut vs The State of Bihar — CWJC/5387/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.
CNR: BRHC010284582026
e-Filing Number
17-03-2026
Filing Number
CWJC/6139/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
CWJC/5387/2026
Registration Date
08-Apr-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
Coram
Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CIVIL WRIT ( 15 )
Sub-Category
COMP.GRND. , BOARD/CORP. SER. ( 2908 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
15-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 22-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Manoj Kumar Raut
Adv. Amit Kumar,Kumar Balkrishna,Kumar Balkrishna, ,Kumar Balkrishna
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Bihar
Adv. ,Pramod Kumar Singh 1123
-
2.The District Magistrate,
-
3.The Deputy Development Commissioner-chief-Executive Officer,
-
4.The Executive Officer, Jila Parishad,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Mr. Justice Ritesh KumarView PDF
Summary: The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Manoj Kumar Raut seeking compassionate appointment as a Sweeper following his father's death in 2010. The court held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after an unreasonable delay, as its purpose is to provide immediate relief during financial crisis at the time of death, not years later. Since the petitioner did not apply for compassionate appointment when eligible (in 2010) and only applied in 2021 after obtaining his matriculation certificate, the claim was barred by delay and laches, citing Supreme Court precedents that compassionate appointment is not a vested right exercisable at any future time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
For Admission - Fresh Cases
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWJC/5387/2026
Summary: The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Manoj Kumar Raut seeking compassionate appointment as a Sweeper following his father's death in 2010. The court held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after an unreasonable delay, as its purpose is to provide immediate relief during financial crisis at the time of death, not years later. Since the petitioner did not apply for compassionate appointment when eligible (in 2010) and only applied in 2021 after obtaining his matriculation certificate, the claim was barred by delay and laches, citing Supreme Court precedents that compassionate appointment is not a vested right exercisable at any future time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts