IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2767 of 2017 Suchika Devi, wife of late Shristidhar Mahto, resident of Shyam Nagar (Gari Halmad), P.O Jhabri, P.S. Silli, Distrrict- Ranchi, Jharkhand. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Human Resource Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi. 6. The District Education Officer, Ranchi. … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate. For the State Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II ------ 08/06.02.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, in fact, has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation. The earlier writ petition being WP(S) No. 1600 of 2003 was disposed of with certain direction. 4. The fact remains that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee, who was a teacher, working in Government Primary School, Halbani, Ormanjhi, Ranchi. He died in harness on 30.5.1988. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1988 and after more than 36 years, no compassionate appointment can be granted to the petitioner. 6. It is an admitted case that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1988. More than thirty six years have passed, the family of the deceased has survived for long 36 years therefore the basic purpose for granting compassionate appointment has been frustrated. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 in paragraphs 18 and 19 has held as under:- “18. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.” 8. In that view, I find no ground to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of. Anu/-Cp2 (ANANDA SEN, J. )