SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, HAZARIBAGH
WPC/1746/2025 · 2025-07-24
Deepak Roshan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5793 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5793 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:20378 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1746 of 2025
-- Shanti Devi, wife of late Chotu Ram, aged about 55 years, resident of Indira Gandhi School Kolghatti, Hazaribagh, P.O. Reformatory School, P.S. Losinghna, district Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)- 825 301.
..... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh, the office address being C.T.S. Colony, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar (Hazaribagh), District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)-825301.
2. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, the office address being C.T.S. Colony, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar (Hazaribagh), District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)-
825301.
3. The Headmistress, Indira Gandhi Balika Vidyalay, Hazaribagh, Kolghatti, P.O. Reformatory School, P.S. Losinghna, district Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) - 825 301.
....Respondents
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peter Martin T.J., Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, A.C to G.P.-VI
-- 04/24.07.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the
order dated 07.11.2020 (Annexure-6), issued by the Headmistress Indira Gandhi Balika Vidyalay, Hazaribag; whereby the employment of the petitioner on daily wages at the Indira Gandhi Balika Vidyalay, Hazaribag was terminated.
3.
After going through the impugned order, it appears that husband of the petitioner was working as Cook in the Respondent-School and was supposed to retire in the year 2023, but before his retirement he died in harness and pursuant thereto, the son of the Petitioner has been given compassionate appointment in the Respondent-School.
Further, after giving post retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner to this petitioner, coupled with the fact of giving appointment to the son of the Petitioner, she has been discharged from doing duty.
2025:JHHC:20378 2
4.
It appears that there is no error in the impugned
order and very logically; the respondents have given the compassionate appointment to the son of this Petitioner and the Petitioner is also getting full pension as per the Rules and Regulation of the Respondent-School.
It further transpires from the record that the impugned order is of 07.11.2020 and writ application has been filed on 10.02.2025 i.e., almost after a delay of 4 ½ years.
5.
Having regard to the aforesaid
facts and circumstances and the discussions made hereinabove, no relief can be granted to this Petitioner; accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk