2025:JHHC:10357 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5952 of 2017 ------- Mukesh Kumar Singh, son of late Shivnandan Singh, resident of Patel Nagar, Chas, P.O and P.S. Chas, Distract- Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... .. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro 5. The District Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro. 6. The Regional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro, 7. The Forest Conservator, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro. 8. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Bokaro. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. …..Respondents. ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI. M/s Rituraj & Deepika Jojowar, AC to SC-VI. ------ 17/02.04.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter/communication dated 24.3.2018 (Annexure-13) as contained in Memo No. 202, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit for such appointment. 3. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the State and was working as Forester. He died in harness on 26.4.2016. This petitioner, being the son of the deceased, applied for grant of compassionate appointment. His case was considered and ultimately by the impugned order dated 24.3.2018, his claim was rejected on the ground that he crossed the upper age limit of 40 years, as has been mentioned in the impugned order that the age of the petitioner was 44 years and 10 months. 4. The fact that the petitioner was 44 years and 10 months, is not disputed. Counsel for the petitioner claims that vide Notification dated 30.10.2019 the upper age limit has been enhanced to 50 years. 5. In my considered view, the said Notification dated 30.10.2019 2025:JHHC:10357 cannot be applied so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned as his case was already considered and was finally rejected on 24.03.2018 itself, which is much before the Notification dated 30.10.2019. Notification dated 30.10.2019 cannot be given retrospective effect to re-open the cases, which have already been set at rest by the authorities. The resolution giving relaxation is prospective in nature and will be applied to the cases which have not attained a quietus. 6. Since the petitioner was admittedly over age, the respondents- State were well in their jurisdiction to reject the claim of the petitioner for grant of his compassionate appointment. 7. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Anu/-Cp2 (ANANDA SEN, J.) 2.