2026:JHHC:1092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5616 of 2022 ------ Pradeep Kumar Singh, son of late Lal Bihari Singh, resident of village Tabar, P.O and P.S. Satbarwa, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. .. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Primary and Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of Primary and Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar. 5. The District Education Officer, Latehar. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Manika, P.O and P.S. Manika, Latehar, Jharkhand. ...Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s Shweta Rani, Advocate (through V.C.) M/s Nishi Rani and Akanksha B. Raje, Advocates. For the State Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines-III ------ 25/15.01.2026: Heard the parties. 2. The bread winner of the family died in the year 1997. Admittedly, the petitioner was 12 years old at time of death of the deceased. The elder brother applied for grant of compassionate appointment, but in the year 2007, he also died. Today, we are in the year 2026, nearly about 28 years have passed. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the cases of compassionate appointment, in the case of State of Best Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 has held that the delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment. 4. In a very recent decision delivered in the case of the Director of Town Panchyat and Ors. Vs. M. Jayabal and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2794 and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment delivered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and several other cases, has held that the compassionate appointment is not a right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that when a family has survived for a considerable period, there is no necessity to grant compassionate appointment. 5. In this case, admittedly, the father of this petitioner died in the year 1997 and the deceased family has survived more than twenty eight 1. years. Further at the time of death of the deceased, the petitioner was only 12 years old, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed. 6. Thus, considering what has been observed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. 15th January, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 21.1.2026