2025:JHHC:10573 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 1305 of 2025 ---- Sandeep Paswan, Son of Chandradev Paswan, Resident of Village- 488, Dhanesh file, Near Mahavir Mandir, Bermo Purvi, Ganrke, P.O.& P.S. Bermo, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkand 2. Deputy Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. Deputy Collector Establishment, Bokaro … … Respodents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C) III 02/19.03.2025 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Letter No.7773 (Anu.) dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-6) issued by Deputy Secretary (Respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder an observation has been made that according to paragraph No.4 of Circular No. 10167 dated 01.12.2015 (Annexure-5) the unmarried brother of the deceased employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has further prayed to set aside the Order of the Deputy Collector Establishment, Bokaro (Respondent No.3) whereby the claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected vide Memo. No. 50 Estd. Dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure-7) in view of the observation made by Deputy Secretary (Respondent No.2). It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid order has been passed without taking into consideration that the divorced wife of the deceased has herself stated in paragraph No.10 of her affidavit dated 26.07.2021(Annexure-3) that she will never claim any benefit arising from the service of her husband and, after the death of sole bread earner in the family, the petitioner is the only surviving dependant to maintain all other dependants of the deceased employee. 2. Bhim Paswan, the elder brother of the petitioner, passed away on October 30, 2020, while working as a Peon in the Circle Office, Bermo. He left behind three younger brothers, Sandeep Paswan, Manoj Paswan and Satish Paswan. Satish Paswan also died after the death of the deceased 2025:JHHC:10573 -: 2 :- employee. Manoj, who is only a 6th grade pass, was not eligible for government employment. His sister, Babita Devi, is married and living with her in-laws. The petitioner, Sandeep Paswan, who holds a B.Com degree from Vinoba Bhave University (2017), applied for compassionate appointment. Before Bhim Paswan’s death, he and his wife, Binti Devi, filed suit for divorce, which was granted by mutual consent on 12.10.2020, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Succession Certificate was issued on August 18, 2023, in favor of Sandeep Paswan, entitling him to a sum of Rs.12,94,600.44/- from the Circle Officer, Bermo, following the death of Bhim Paswan. Binti Devi, Bhim’s divorced wife, confirmed in an affidavit on July 26, 2021, that she or her minor daughter would not claim any benefits from Bhim’s service. The Circle Officer also issued a Family Members Certificate on January 28, 2021, listing the surviving family members: Sandeep Paswan, Manoj Paswan, Babita Devi (married sister), and Satish Paswan (who died after Bhim). The petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated November 29, 2024, issued by the Deputy Secretary (Respondent No. 2) in which compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was not a bachelor and in fact, he was married and thereafter divorced. The divorced wife had already extended her “No Objection” in favour of this petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. The action of the respondent Company while treating the deceased workman to be bachelor is an error. He further argues that the defence of the respondent that in case if the deceased employee is unmarried, no compassionate appointment can be granted is not applicable in the facts of this case, as the deceased was admittedly married and later got divorced. The deceased used to maintain the family, that is why the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased. Even if the deceased was married, the same will not be of any benefit to this petitioner. It is the wife, who can claim compassionate appointment for maintaining herself, but, admittedly, in this case wife does not want compassionate appointment as she was divorced and “No Objection” has been given by her, which would suggest that no compassionate appointment should be given in this case. He further argues that the petitioner being brother and major, cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased. 2025:JHHC:10573 -: 3 :- 5. From the records of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is the brother of the deceased and is aged about 33 years. The deceased employee had left behind three brothers and a married sister, who were major. Petitioner, who is 33 years and approximately 28 years at the time of death of the deceased, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be legally dependent on the deceased employee. The intention of the petitioner is to obtain service by means of compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment cannot be a means for recruitment. 6. In view of what has been held above, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02