2025:JHHC:24816 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5783 of 2017 Subodh Kumar Bhagat @ Manoj Kumar Bhagat, S/o Late Surendra Kumar Bhagat, resident of H. No.27, Manifit Oriya Basti, Telco, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Telco, District Singhbhum East, Jharkhand, PIN - 831004 ....Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman H.E.C. Engineering Bhawan, Durwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board/Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., HEC Engineering Bhawan, Durwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Director (Personnel) Jharkhand State Electricity Board, H.E.C. Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, 132/33 KV. Grid, Transmission Sub-division, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd. Gamhariya (Adityapur-1), P.O. and P.S. Gamhariya, District Saraikella. 5. General Manager (Personnel-cum-General Administrative) Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, at, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Circle, Gamhariya (Adityapur-1), P.O. and P.S. Gamhariya, District Saraikella. ...Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Prabhash Kumar, Ganesh Ram, Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate s For the Resp.JSEB (now JUVNL) : M/s. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Abhinay Kumar, Advocates --- 13/14.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: 2025:JHHC:24816 2 (A) For quashing the Memo No.451 dated 31.03.2017 issued under the signature of General Manager, (Personnel-cum-General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi (Annexure-14) whereby petitioner’s representation filed in pursuance of Hon'ble Court's order dated 05.07.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.888 of 2016 has been rejected. (B) For issuance of writ of Mandamus to withdraw/cancel/rescind the aforesaid impugned order dated 31.03.2017 and not to give effect to that impugned order. (C) For a direction upon the Respondents concerned to consider the case of petitioner afresh for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on account of fact that he is only surviving son born out of wedlock of petitioner's deceased father and his mother Smt. Manju Devi and petitioner's Late father died in Harness on 26.11.2005 while he was employed under Respondents and there is no other claimant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground and Petitioner's mother i.e., widow of deceased employee has also made request for making Petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground. (D) For a further direction upon the respondents to declare the succession certificate is not required/essential for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in the light of judgment reported in 2005(3) PLJR-page-163 (Usha Kuamri - vrs. Vice Chancellor and others) and grounds formulated and reasons assigned in impugned order dated 31.03.2017 rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of appointment on compassionate ground is totally untenable, unjust in the Eye of law and said contentions of Respondents may be set aside/quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. Admittedly, the employee, who was working before the Respondent-Organization died in harness on 26.11.2005 and the Petitioner happens to be his son. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after a long battle up-till Supreme Court, the petitioner has been declared to be son of the deceased employee. 2025:JHHC:24816 3 5. However, in any view of the matter, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after almost 20 years from the death of the deceased employee. On that ground alone, I do not want to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk