2025:JHHC:35313 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S No. 6235 of 2025 ----- Pradeep Bedia, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Chandra Bedia, R/o Village- Kander, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh 829122, Jharkhand ...Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The Director General Defense Estates, Ministry of Defense, Govt. Of India, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulan Bator, Delhi Cantt, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi 110010. 3. The Principal Director, Defense Estates Ministry of Defense, Govt. Of India, Central Command, Lucknow Cantt, P.O. & P.S. Lucknow, Lucknow-226002. 4. The Welfare Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh. 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Ramiz Zafar, Advocate : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate …...... 04/ 13.11.2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for Compassionate Appointment in the light of the letter no.E/I/3/WC/2024 dated 18" July 2024 issued by Respondent Chief Executive Officer Ramgarh Cantt whereby and whereunder the case of the petitioner for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground had to be considered for the year 2024 which is still pending consideration. ii. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for declaring that the Respondent authority should consider the markings of the petitioner 2025:JHHC:35313 2 under the 2010 scheme vide MoD note No.19(3)/2009/D (Lab) issued dated 22.01.2010 and 14.05.2010, whereby and whereunder the Respondent authorities have to adopt the 100 point scale for assessing the merit of the candidate for grant of appointment on compassionate ground iii. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for further declaring that the Respondent Chief Executive Officer, Ramgarh Cantt Board cannot issue any letter/order stating the rejection of the petitioner’s eligibility for the year 2022, & 2023 without substantiating the same with the merit list and the welfare committee report to the petitioner. iv. For further directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the waiting list only along with the candidates falling under the 2010 scheme and not to make him compete with the new candidates every year who fall under the 2018 scheme and to thereafter appoint the petitioner on his suitable post as per his eligibility. 2. The petitioner’s father, Late Chandru Bedia, was appointed as a Safaiwala in the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, in 1996. He died while in service on 28.11.2012. After his father’s death, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment on 27.06.2013 with all required documents. However, the authorities took no action. After waiting for almost five years, he filed W.P.(S) No.401/2018 in which the authorities were directed to consider his case. Even after the Court’s order, the authorities did not comply for two more years. Only after filing of a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) no. 210 of 2024 the authorities issued a letter on 18.07.2024 stating that his case would be considered along with other candidates for 2024. The contempt case was disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 18.07.2024 before appropriate forum. Hence this writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ministry of Defence had a 100-point scale of weightage system which was revised in 2010- this was the scheme in force when the petitioner’s father died in 2013. However, the authorities have wrongly applied the 2018 revised scheme, which is unfair and has been admitted by them in their reply to 2025:JHHC:35313 3 show-cause. He further submits that due to delays by the authorities, the petitioner and his family have suffered for 12 years. He also submits that if petitioner’s case would have been considered under the 2010 scheme, soon after his father’s death, his score would have been higher because the family’s financial condition was worse at that time. Instead, the authorities kept delaying and now has rejected his claim without giving reasons or disclosing his score. He further submits that the letter dated 18th July 2024 shows that his claims for the years 2022 and 2023 were rejected arbitrarily, without a proper or reasoned order. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the respondents are already considering petitioner’s case for the year 2024 in accordance with applicable rules. He further submits that 12 years has already passed from time of death of the deceased employee. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. He also submits the respondents have duly complied with the High Court’s earlier directions by placing the petitioner’s case before the Welfare Committees for the years 2022 and 2023. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find the petitioner is seeking directions for compassionate appointment after more than twelve years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after an inordinate delay. Hon’ble Supreme court in case of “Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K.” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family. It is necessary to quote relevant part of paragraph 11 of the said judgment- 11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider 2025:JHHC:35313 4 certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a)… b)… c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari” reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 on the point of delay in paragraph 35 has held that- 35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may 2025:JHHC:35313 5 not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, I find that in case of long delay either on part of the applicant in claiming Compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy gets diluted and the financial situation of the family of the deceased got changed. In this case the family of the deceased survived the financial crisis and 12 years have passed. In view of aforesaid fact the very purpose of compassionate appointment stands defeated due to the long lapse of time. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 13.11.2025 Tanuj