IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3323 of 2024 ---- Pratik Jee son of Late Sanjay Kumar Singh, resident of Qr. No.246/2/3, Road No.6, P.O. Adityapur, P.S. RIT, Adityapur, District Seraikela-Kharsawan. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, having Office at Nepal House, PO PS Doranda, Town & District Ranchi. 2. The Director, Soil Conservation, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, having Office at Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, PO PS Kanke, Town and District Ranchi. 3. The District Soil Conservation Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, PO PS Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 4. District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, PO PS Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, SC V ---- 4/ 06.01.2025 In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 10.05.2023, by which the District Compassionate Committee has rejected the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of application for compassionate appointment is absolutely bad and against the findings of the Committee itself. It is his contention that it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the claim has been made after the limitation period, which is incorrect as the document of the respondent itself would suggest that the claim was made within 5 (five) years from the date of death of the employee. He refers to Annexure 2, which is the rejection order to substantiate his claim. 3. Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after huge delay. He submits that the father of the petitioner died on 14.11.2014, whereas, this writ petition has been filed in the year 2024. He further submits that as per the guidelines of the Government, a person becomes eligible to get compassionate appointment if he is major. In this case, petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Further, he submits that the application for -: 1 :- compassionate appointment was filed after five years, whereas the time limit prescribed for such application is five years. Since the application has been filed after five years from the date of death of the employee, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 4. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the records. It is admitted that the father of the petitioner died on 14.11.2014. It is also admitted that his father was District Soil Conservation Officer. It is also admitted that there is a scheme of compassionate appointment. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment, which is brought on record as Annexure ‘A’, only a major dependent is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. It is also an admitted case of the respondents-State that the time limit for filing application for compassionate appointment is five years from the date of death of the employee. 5. In this case, I find from the impugned order, which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition, that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 25.06.2016 and the date of death of his father is 14.11.2014. In the remarks column of the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner should have applied within 13.11.2019 as the period for limitation is 5 (five) years. This Court fails to understand that how this observation and remark has been entered in the impugned order when admittedly as per Column ‘8’ of the said document, the respondents, themselves, have admitted that the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment on 25.06.2016. The date of death of father of this petitioner is mentioned in Column No.6, which is recorded as 14.11.2014. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has applied within 5 years from the date of death of his father. Hence, the ground given in the impugned order to reject the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has got no legs to stand and the same has been recorded without application of mind. 6. So far as the plea of the respondents regarding petitioner being minor is concern, his date of birth has been mentioned as 20.09.1997 and his application is well within time, which is dated 25.06.2016, thus, the age of the petitioner on the date of application for grant of compassionate appointment was more than 18 years. Nowhere in the Scheme it has been mentioned that on the date of death of the employee, dependent should be major, rather it has only been mentioned that as per the Service Rule, only a major can be -: 2 :- appointed on compassionate ground. In this case, the petitioner has applied for grant of compassionate appointment well within time, thus, minority of the petitioner cannot be a ground. 7. Another ground taken by the respondents was delay in filing of the writ petition. This ground is also not correct. Admittedly, the respondents sat over the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment from June 2016 till May 2023 and it is only in May 2023, petitioner claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Committee. Petitioner, immediately, thereafter approached this Court in 2024, thus, I find that there is no delay in filing this writ petition. 8. Considering what has been held above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Impugned order dated 10.05.2023 is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02 -: 3 :-