2025:JHHC:20657 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3751 of 2024 --------- Abhimanyu Kharia, aged about 25 years, Son of Late Ramu Khaira, Resident of village - Rabindra Nagar, Panchayat - Nawadih Asro, P.O. + P.S. - Dumri, District – Gumla, Jharkhand. ......Petitioner Versus 1. Bank of India, represented through General Manager, H.R., having its office at “Star House, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O. + P.S. - Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051. 2. General Manager, H.R, having its office at “Star House, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O. + P.S. - Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051. 3. Zonal Manager, Ranchi, having its office at Pradhan Tower, 2nd Floor, Main Road (South) Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. - Daily Market, District - Ranchi. 4. Chief Manager, Human Resource Department, Bank of India, having its office at Pradhan Tower, 2nd Floor, Main Road (South) Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. -Daily Market, District – Ranchi. 5. The Manager, Bank of India, Dumri Branch, having office at Dumri, P.O. + P.S. - Nawadih, District - Gumla, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Anand, Advocate --------- 07/Dated:-28.07.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the letter issued by the Chief Manager, Human Resource Department, Bank of India, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has erroneously been rejected. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court and submits that the respondents were very well having knowledge that he is the only son of the erstwhile 2025:JHHC:20657 2 employee whose mother also died in 2016 itself and he was asked by the respondents to fill the application form. Subsequently, he is also getting the family pension which he will get up till attaining the age of 25. However, after the instruction of the respondent- Bank, he filed an application on 23.06.2022 for compassionate appointment and in the impugned order rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner, only ground has been taken that the application has been filed after a delay of one year and six days in view of the Bank’s Regulation where there is a limitation of five years to file an application for compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the order passed in Suo Motu WP (C) No.3 of 2020 and submits that in the second round of COVID Pandemic, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given relaxation of age from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022; as such, the delay of one year six days can be ignored by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the Bank’s Rules ad Regulation, a compassionate appointment can be given only to the person who makes an application within a period of five years and therefore, since the petitioner was very well aware with the fact, he did not file any application and ultimately, on 23.06.2022, he filed an application i.e., almost after six years from the date of death of his father; as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after 2025:JHHC:20657 3 going through the documents available on record, it appears that the father of the petitioner was working in the Respondent-Bank of India, who died while in service on 17.06.2016. Unfortunately, the mother of the petitioner also died in the same year in the month of December. At the time of death of his parents, the petitioner was a minor, inasmuch as, his date of birth is 04.04.1999. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 23.06.2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of five years and a delay of one year and six days has been committed by the petitioner in filing the application for compassionate appointment. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is getting family pension from the year 2019 itself which he will get until he attains the age of 25 years as per the Bank’s Rules and Regulations. 7. Having regard to the provisions of the Respondent Bank and the admitted facts that the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment after a delay of one year six days; whereas he was having knowledge about the same, inasmuch as, he was getting the family pension from the Bank since 2019 itself; I don’t find any error in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-