2026:JHHC:3824 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 830 of 2012 ---------- Poonam Kumari, daughter of Late Shiv Shankar Ram, resident of village Bishnupur, P.O., P.S. and District Latehar. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. District & Sessions Judge, Latehar. …… Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shubham Mishra, AC to SC(M)-II ---------- 12/ 12.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground since her father died in harness on 26.07.2008 and out of two sons of deceased employee namely, Madan Kumar, was working as Class-IV employee in the Civil Court, Latehar and the younger son namely, Awnidhar Paswan is not fit for appointment since he is suffering from mental retardation. 3. From writ petition itself it appears that on earlier occasion, a writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 4026 of 2008, was filed by the mother of the petitioner namely, Mandodari Kumari for compassionate appointment of her daughter-in-law namely, Rekha Devi, but the same was dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, against the order dated 13.12.2008, an appeal was also preferred which was also stood dismissed. 4. Thus, it is evident that for taking compassionate appointment, the petitioner is trying her level best. As per the averments made in the writ application itself, earlier an application was filed for compassionate appointment by one of the legal heirs of deceased employee, which was dismissed and the order of the Writ Court 2026:JHHC:3824 2 was affirmed by the Division Bench and again, the instant writ has been filed, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5. Even otherwise, the death of the deceased employee occurred on 13.12.2008 and we are in the year 2026 i.e. almost 17 years have lapsed. As stated herein above, the dismissal of the writ filed by the mother of the petitioner for the same relief does not give any right to the petitioner to approach again for the same said relief for compassionate appointment. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application is dismissed. 7. This is a fit case to impose cost but this Court is not imposing any cost but only a warning to any such type of petitioners not to abuse the process of law. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 12th February, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded on 11/03/2026