2025:JHHC:19654 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 7415 of 2017 ---- Md. Asif Iqbal Son of Late Md. Hassan resident of village- Lodhipur, P.S.-Lodhipur, District-Bhagalpur, Bihar .....Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Joint Secretary (Administration), Santhal, P.O. & P.S. Pargana, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Pakur Circle, P.O., P.S. & Dist-Pakur, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & Dist-Pakur, Jharkhand. 5. Md. Sahid Son of Late Md. Hassan resident of village- Lodhipur, P.O. & P.S.- Lodhipur, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar. ....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Navjot Yeshu, Advocates For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV -- 07/16.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: For quashing of the Order as contained in Letter No-91 dated 28.2.2017 (Annexure-06) issued by Respondent No-2 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after cancelling the appointment of Respondent No-5. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in spite of repeated efforts he is having no instruction from the Petitioner. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the grievance of the Petitioner has now become infructuous in view of the fact that the Petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment, but the compassionate appointment has already been extended to brother of the Petitioner, namely, Md. Sahid vide Annexure-L to the 2025:JHHC:19654 2 counter affidavit as the deceased employee died on 4th December, 2010 and the compassionate appointment has already been given to respondent no. 5 on 16.10.2014; as such, it is basically a dispute between two family members and even otherwise, it is not a case of compassionate appointment because respondents have already extended the benefit of compassionate appointment to the brother; accordingly, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the averments made in the counter affidavit, coupled with the fact that the respondents have already extended compassionate appointment to one of the legal heirs, who is respondent no. 5 in the instant writ application; as such, I do not find any error in the action of the Respondents. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk