2026:JHHC:1218 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5289 of 2022 ----- 1. Saraswati Devi, aged about 79 years, widow of Late Kapildeo Yadav, resident of Village Dumri, P.O. Nandudih, P.S. Satgawan, District Koderma, Jharkhand. 2. Anita Kumari aged about 44 years, daughter of Late Kapildeo Yadav, wife of Ravindra Nath Sinha, resident of Village Baghna, P.O. Makhar, P.S. Akbarpur, District Nalanda, Bihar … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Under Secretary, Home Prison and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma - cum Chairman, District Appointment Committee, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, Jharkhand. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma. 6. The District Welfare Officer, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Saurav Mahto, AG to GP-1. ------ 15/15.01.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 04.08.2022 as contained in letter no. 302 / Estb. issued under the signature of respondent no.4, addressing to the respondent no.3, whereby the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner no.2 has been rejected on the ground of being married sister of deceased teacher Niraj Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar, who was killed by the extremists on 25.09.2004 along with three other members of his family including his father and thereby an amount of Rs. 50,000/- said to have been paid as compensation. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding upon the respondents particularly the respondent no. 4 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2 on account of death of his brother Late Niraj Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar, son of Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, who was killed by the extremists along with his three other family members on 25.09.2004, as has been decided by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the 2026:JHHC:1218 Page | 2 case of Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Hemanti Devi, decided on 16.08.2018 (2018 SCC Online Jhar 918) in L.P.A. No. 196 of 2017, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal No. 29678 of 2019. 2. The petitioners are the family members of Late Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, a retired primary teacher, who, along with his son Niraj Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar, his nephew Anoj Kumar, and Sakaldeo Prasad Yadav, was killed by MCCI extremists on 25.09.2004. Monetary compensation was provided to the petitioners, and the eldest son, Suresh Kumar, was given a Class-IV government job in 2012. The daughter (petitioner no.2) applied for compassionate employment immediately after her brother’s death, but her claim was kept in pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite recommendations from the Circle Officer and Deputy Commissioner, her application was rejected in 2022 on the ground that she was married, even though she had applied when she was unmarried and was dependent on her brother. He further submits that the rejection is illegal and arbitrary, citing multiple High Court precedents where compassionate employment was granted to victims’ family members, including married daughters or sisters. He also submits that respondents delayed the process for 18 years and cannot deny employment now. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner is the married sister of the deceased Niraj Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar. According to government policy, compassionate employment is not allowed for married sisters when the death occurs due to Naxal violence. He further submits that Suresh Kumar, the brother of the deceased, has already been given a compassionate appointment after the death of their father, Kapildeo Yadav, and therefore, the purpose of compassionate employment to help the family in a sudden crisis has been fulfilled. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I am of the opinion that the basic concept of compassionate appointment needs to be followed in this case also, though the deceased was not a government servant. Compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after an inordinate delay. Be it noted that there is a scheme to give appointment to non-employee in case of death in 2026:JHHC:1218 Page | 3 extremist violence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the cases of compassionate appointment, in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 has held that the delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment. In paragraph 35 it has been held as under- 35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. 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. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, I find that the very purpose of compassionate appointment stands defeated due to the long lapse of time as the death took place sometime in the year 2004 and there is delay in claiming compassionate appointment. 20 years have passed now and the family has overcome the sudden crises. Further, one employment has already been given to the family. 2026:JHHC:1218 Page | 4 7. Thus, considering what has been observed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15.01.2026 S.K.D.cp-2 Uploaded on 24.01.2026