2025:JHHC:36245-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 421 of 2025 Dileep Kumar, S/o Late Bhola Prasad, R/o Village-Shankarpur, P.O. & P.S.- Navinagar, District-Aurangabad (Bihar) ….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Forest & Environment, Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Palamau 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Garhwa Division, Garhwa 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V ----- 06/03.12.2025 I.A. No. 9165 of 2025: 1. For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant, we find sufficient cause having been carved out which prevented him from filing the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 100 days crept up in filing of the present appeal is condoned. 2. The present interlocutory application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 421 of 2025: 3. Heard. 4. The petitioner/appellant had approached the learned Writ Court for grant of following reliefs: “For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the Memo No. 208/Stha. Dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure-12) issued by 2025:JHHC:36245-DB 2 the respondent no. 6 i.e. Deputy Collector, Garhwa, whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. (b). For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for issuance of appropriate direction to consider the name of petitioner for quashing appointment on the basis of compassionate ground as his father died in harness on 29.07.2000 living behind the petitioner and other family members, no means of livelihood.” 5. It is not in dispute that the father of the appellant was working as a Forest-Guard and he expired on 29.07.2000 while in service. Later on, the mother of the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment on 13.09.2000 and thereafter on 15.09.2000. However, on account of dispute with another person, who claimed to be the wife of the ex-employee, a succession case was filed, which was decided in favour of the mother of the appellant. After the said decision, the mother of the appellant again filed an application for compassionate appointment, but this time she filed the same on behalf of the appellant on 23.08.2006 when admittedly at that point of time, he was a minor. However, the respondents rejected the said claim on the grounds that the appellant was a minor on the date of making of the application and that the same was filed beyond the stipulated period of five years. Learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition by concluding that the order of rejection passed by the respondents was a well-reasoned order as admittedly the appellant was a minor on the date of making of the application i.e. 23.08.2006. 6. We have perused the impugned order and have also gone through the record of the case. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the respondents could not have rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground of his minority and at the same time, by treating the application to be beyond the stipulated period of five years. Both these findings are 2025:JHHC:36245-DB 3 contrary to each other. Either the application has to be treated within time or the case of the appellant, who is still a minor, could not have been rejected. 7. Be that as it may. 8. A minor does not have a right to employment and therefore the respondents are well within their right to have rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground of his minority, but under no circumstances, they could have treated the application to be not maintainable having been filed beyond the stipulated period of five years. Since the appellant has now attained the majority, obviously, the earlier order rejecting the claim cannot come in his way while preferring a fresh application for compassionate appointment. 9. Therefore, while clarifying the impugned order passed by the Writ Court, we permit the appellant to file a fresh application seeking his compassionate appointment, which shall be made within one month from today and shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of such application. 10. It goes without saying that in case the appellant is required to annex certain documents, the respondents shall afford him an opportunity of annexing those documents before rejecting his claim on such technical ground. 11. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. (TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J) 3rd December, 2025 Satish/Vikas/ Uploaded on 04.12.2025