2025:JHHC:29445 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.997 of 2025 ----- Lakshmi Mukherjee, D/o late Gurudas Mukherjee, W/o Sri Dipak Mukherjee, R/o village Bhandara Gram, Salanpur More, PO and PS Sitarampur, District Burdwan, West Bengal … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi, PO and PS New Delhi 2.Director (Mines Safety), Director General of Mines Safety, PO, PS and District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 3.Deputy Director, Director General of Mines Safety, Eastern Zone, Sitarampur, PO and PS Sitarampur, District Burdwan, West Bengal … Respondent(s). With Cont. Case (Civil) No.830 of 2025 ----- Lakshmi Mukherjee, D/o late Gurudas Mukherjee, R/o Sitarmpur (DGMS), Mining Colony, PO Sitarampur, PS Kulti, District Burdwan, West Bengal … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.Union of India through Ms. Vandana Gurai, Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, PO and PS Rafi Marg, District Central Delhi, NCT, New Delhi 2.Ujjwal Tah, Director (Mines Safety), Director General of Mines Safety, PO, PS and District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 3.Ajay Singh, Deputy Director, Director General of the Mines Safety, PO, PS and District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 4.The State of Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC Ms. Nitu Sinha, CGC For the State : Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV Mr. Ashutosh Anand no. 2, AC to GP-IV …...... 08 /23.09.2025: WP(S) No.997 of 2025 Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction to immediately and forthwith give appointment to the petitioner on 2025:JHHC:29445 2 compassionate ground as per the policy as prevalent under the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that father of this petitioner was posted and working as a Peon in the office of Director General of Mines Safety, Eastern Zone who died on 26.05.2007. 3. On death of the employee on 26.05.2007 the mother of this petitioner has given representation and requested to provide employment on compassionate ground. 4. As the matter did not proceed, again representation was filed on 22.12.2011. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee. 5. At that point of time the petitioner was not intermediate and also not matriculate. Ultimately the petitioner’s case was considered and vide meeting which was held on 28.06.2013 the petitioner was not recommended on the ground that the petitioner lacks educational qualification. Further in 2015 a letter No. 11627 dated 16.09.2015 was issued to the petitioner intimating the petitioner that the Committee considered the case of 9 deserving candidates including the case of the petitioner but recommended only two of the most deserving candidates. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was assured by the respondents time and again that her case will be considered but ultimately appointment was not given, she was forced to approach this Court by filing the instant application. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is a matriculate and has also passed intermediate thus there is no bar in giving appointment to the petitioner. He further submits that the rules of the respondents provides for relaxing the educational qualification and consider the case on the sympathetic ground if the deceased is a Class-IV employee. He submits that the deceased had left behind his wife and two unmarried daughters. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that not only there are limited number of seats but the case of the petitioner was 2025:JHHC:29445 3 considered in 2013 and the same was not recommended i.e. rejected. The petitioner was communicated vide letter dated 16.09.2015 which was duly received by the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court after 10 years of the said rejection. Thus, this writ petition may be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 26.05.2007. The case of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected by the Committee in their meeting dated 28.06.2013. The reasons for rejection is that the petitioner at that point of time lacks the educational qualification. This rejection order was communicated to the petitioner on 16.09.2015. The petitioner after delay of 10 years has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 9. The purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to grant immediate relief to the family of the bread winner on account of death of the bread winner in harness. The delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment. Due to passage of time, compassion diminishes. 10. In this case admittedly the father of the petitioner died on 26.05.2007. Now 18 years have already passed. The family has tide over the immediate financial crisis. Further the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 16.09.2015. The petitioner sat over the same and had approached this Court only on 05.02.2025 i.e. nearly after 10 years. There is gross delay in approaching this Court. Thus no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the same is dismissed. 11. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands dismissed. Cont. Case (Civil) No.830 of 2025 12. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, this contempt application is also dropped. 13. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23.09.2025 Tanuj/CP-2