1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5159 of 2022 Maranmay Murmu, aged about 32 years, W/O late Jiten Hembram, R/O Jirul, P.O. – Borio, P.S.- Borio, District – Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. & District – Sahibganj. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. & District – Sahibganj. 4. Officer-in-charge, District Compassionate Committee, General Branch, Sahibganj. 5. Circle Office, Borio, P.O. & P.S. – Borio, District – Sahibganj. … … Respondents --- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV --- 06/10th February 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. Prayer has been made for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner who is wife of the deceased. 3. Admittedly the deceased was working as Choukidar in the State of Jharkhand and he died in harness on 18.02.2015. After death of the deceased-husband, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment which was earlier rejected on 23.03.2021 and this order of rejection was not challenged by the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that petitioner has passed matriculation examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which was not recognized by the State Government. Thereafter the petitioner filed another representation on 25.05.2021 for compassionate appointment stating therein that she has appeared in matric examination again. She finally passed the matriculation examination on 29.07.2021. The said representation stood rejected on the ground of limitation. Admittedly, the time limit prescribed for 2 filing an application for compassionate appointment is five years. 4. Earlier the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected which was not challenged. The petitioner again filed an application in the year 2021. This application of 2021 has to be treated to be a fresh application and not in continuity with the earlier, as at the time of the earlier application the petitioner was not eligible. 5. Further I find that the husband of the petitioner died on 18.02.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Premlata (2022) 1 SCC 30 held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. After due passage of time, no compassion exists. Now after ten years, when the petitioners’ family finally has survived the crisis, I do not find any ground to appoint petitioner on compassionate ground. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi