-1 of 3- L.P.A. No. 454 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 454 of 2024 1. Canara Bank, through Divisional Manager, HRM Section, Circle Office, Ranchi, PO - GPO, PS - Hindpiri, Dist. - Ranchi, PIN - 834001. 2. Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Human Resources Management Section, HRM Section, Circle Office, Ranchi, PO - GPO, PS - Hindpiri, Dist. - Ranchi, PIN-834001. 3. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Bokaro Steel City Branch, PO & PS - Bokaro Steel City, Dist. - Bokaro. ……….. Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Dheeraj Lal Hansda, aged about 29 years, Son of Jageshwar Hansda @ Jogeshwar Hansda, Resident of - Village - Bartor, P.O. - G. Raghunathpur, P.S. - Tundi, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand. …………… Petitioner/Respondent 2. State of Jharkhand ……. Respondent/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No.1: Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State: Ms. Surabhi, A.C. to AAG-II --------- 06/Dated: 17.03.2025 M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral) 1. Heard counsel for the appellants-Bank and the counsel for 1st respondent. 2. Perused the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on 10.06.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 5012 of 2022. 3. The 1st respondent’s father, who had been employed in the appellant Bank had died on 6.10.2015. The 1st respondent had approached the -2 of 3- L.P.A. No. 454 of 2024 appellant-Bank for compassionate appointment in December, 2015 soon thereafter. 4. The appellants-Bank rejected it on 03.10.2020 by an order which merely mentioned that there were no indigent circumstances and that the 1st respondent’s case doesn’t fall within the parameters of it’s policy. No particulars were mentioned as to on what basis it has come to the conclusion that there were no indigent circumstances. 5. The learned Single Judge found fault with this order in the impugned judgment on the ground that it is an unreasoned order and directed the appellants not only to consider the case of the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment but also to issue letter of appointment on compassionate ground within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. Counsel for the appellants contends that to the extent the learned Single Judge directed issuance of letter of appointment on compassionate ground within eight weeks from the date of passing of the order, the learned Single Judge had erred. He contended that since he had also directed the appellants to consider the case of the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment, he cannot give the direction to the appellants -Bank to give the compassionate appointment. 7. He stated that during the course of such consideration of the case of the 1st respondent for grant of compassionate appointment the entire relevant material available with the appellants will be considered. 8. Counsel for the 1st respondent contends that to the extent the learned Single Judge directed consideration of the case of the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment, the appellants-Bank cannot have any -3 of 3- L.P.A. No. 454 of 2024 grievance because it had passed an unreasoned order to reject the 1st respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment, which is also vague. 9. We agree that it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to direct issuance of letter of appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st respondent while simultaneously directing the appellants to consider the case of the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment. 10. On the basis of the material available with the appellants-Bank it has to take a view on the matter and then pass an order on the said aspect by giving reasons which contain particulars. 11. Therefore, to the extent the learned Single Judge directed issuance of letter of appointment to the 1st respondent on compassionate ground the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the rest of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. 12. The appellants-Bank shall consider the case of the 1st respondent within four weeks for grant of compassionate appointment and then pass a reasoned order with full particulars and communicate it to the 1st respondent. The appellants-Bank shall not raise the question of delay between the date of passing of the 1st respondent’s father and the date of consideration of the application pursuant to this judgment as a ground for rejecting the 1st respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment. 13. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) APK/VK