W.P. (S) No .857 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 857 of 2025 Ashmit Raj, aged about 26 years, son of Late Raj Kumar Prasad, Resident of Julu Park, P.O.- Hazaribag, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand (825301) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Registrar, High Court of Jharkhand, office at New Jharkhand High Court Campus, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.- Jaggarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand (834004). 3. The Secretary, Department of law and Justice, office at Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand (834002). 4. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, office at Civil Court Campus, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand (825301). 5. The Registrar, Civil Court, Hazaribagh, office at Civil Court Campus, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand (825301). 6. The Secretary, Department of Personal Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, State of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand (834002). ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III --------- Reserved on: 27.02.2025 Pronounced on: 26/03/2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the office order dt. 25.04.2023 (Annexure 4) along with the order dt. 20.04.2023 passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner’s request to be appointed on compassionate ground. 2. The petitioner’s father, late Raj Kumar Prasad, was an employee posted as Assistant (Group-C) at the Civil Courts, Hazaribagh. He died on W.P. (S) No .857 of 2025 26.09.2020, leaving behind his wife and three sons including the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the other brothers of the petitioner are also Government employees. 3. Though the petitioner had produced ‘No Objection’ affidavits of his brothers along with his self declaration affidavit dt. 14.02.2023 for consideration of his name for compassionate appointment on a Group-C post in the place of his late father, petitioner’s request was rejected on the ground that family pension was being received by his mother and his two elder brothers were already Government Servants. 4. The decision of the Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Anusree K.B.1 and the decision of the Supreme in The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors2 were referred to and it was observed that the intent behind appointment on compassionate grounds is for the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis/emergency caused by his/her death. The respondents, therefore, held that considering the petitioner’s current financial status and family sources of income, it cannot be said that his family is suffering from immediate financial distress. This was communicated to the petitioner on 25.04.2023. 5. Petitioner then filed the instant writ petition contending primarily that his two elder brothers, who were Government Servants, had got married and were staying in separate houses with their families, but the petitioner was staying in Hazaribagh with his aged mother and in these circumstances, it was a fit case to appoint him on compassionate basis. 6. It is a settled law that a candidate does not have any vested right to claim compassionate appointment and only when he/she is covered under all clauses of the applicable scheme at relevant point of time, he/she can be considered for compassionate appointment. 1 Civil Appeal No. 6958 of 2022 dt. 30.09.2022 2 Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of 2022 dt. 03.03.2023 W.P. (S) No .857 of 2025 7. In the instant case, the scheme of compassionate appointment was notified on 01.12.2015. The said scheme specifically mentioned that there should be financial distress to the family of the deceased-employee for considering the claim of the family for compassionate appointment. 8. When two of the elder brothers of the petitioner are gainfully employed in government services, such a situation does not exist. Therefore, the respondents had acted rightly in denying to the petitioner compassionate appointment as sought by him. 9. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 10. All pending applications shall stand disposed off. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.F.R. Manoj/-